Posts by Bernard M. Orwell

Re: Blathering Bernie Boring Bernie linicks Haven't a clue

"where is the evil police state you insist has been "imposed" on you?" ~ MB

As you have declined to answer my comment in the thread itself, despite your answers on other, similar threads, here is a link to an article that shows one very clear example of the erosion of civil liberties as a direct result of anti-terror legislation.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/30/police_scotland_taken_tribunal_former_detective_unlawful_snooping/

I await your comments with interest.

Re: Boring Bernie linicks Haven't a clue

"....commensurate with the threat." Yeah, I bet there were plenty of the victims at the Bataclan that often rebleated such popularist, handwringer mantras, only they can't tell you now."

If the systems that have been imposed both on our civil liberties and our tax-payer purse HAD been commensurate, and the authorities KNEW who was going to carry out these acts, then surely they should NOT have happened?

I don't have a problem with profiling actual suspects, nor do I object to surveilling of actual suspects, and when these things turn up a positive I expect action to be taken to ameliorate the detected threat. I do not believe that mass surveillance is a good way to carry out these activities, and that the process must be extra-governmental and subject to legal oversight at the highest levels. It is not for the politico's to decide the legality of the processes any more than it is for them to direct the police or the courts to suit their political agenda.

And, if nothing else, surely this should prompt some sort of question as to the motivations of the government (as far as where and why they are spending VAST sums of cash on these activities without measureable result) and how cost effective the measures are.

Even looking at this from a capitalist, conservative viewpoint should prompt serious questions that require clear answers, and so far we're not getting them.

Re: linicks Haven't a clue

I trust you have evidence to the contrary, MB? I mean evidence now, not rhetoric, faulty logic, ad hominems or opinion. Actual *evidence* that the French authorities intelligence services knew all about the attacks in both incidents but failed to act.

That's a big claim.

almost as big as claiming that all this intrusion, surveillance, loss of civil liberties is effective, financially appropriate and commensurate with the threat.

Re: @x 7 -- @AC (the naive one) Works for me

*Watches the tumbleweed roll on by*

Re: Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down.

"FGS these people are raping even pre pubescent girls, and over here we have sleek, well fed westerners sitting at their expensive IT parroting quasi Marxist lines on holding the powerful to account; utterly childish and badly considered."

You know what? I don't actually totally disagree with you. I do feel that there is too much chatting and not enough action on the subject of how to deal with ISIS, especially in the west. People are suffering under these barbarians and we're not actually doing much about it.

Russia, on the other hand, seems to have little hesitation in taking direct action, so I don't think it's the "Marxists" who are doing the prognosticating any more than its "Capitalists" who are bogging actions down in endless meetings and debates.

Re: Works for me @ AC

"I don't believe they are insane..."

I think it could be argued that fundamentalist beliefs are possibly a sign of mental disfunction, buts that's an argument for another day. I personally think that adults who believe in sky fairies to the degree that they are willing to kill over it have something not quite right going on upstairs, but I don't have much evidence to support that assumption.

"We need to talk to them and and understand not just listen to the UK / US government point of view."

We're not going to have much success trying to talk to ISIS I fear. Their goal is to provoke a conflict and little else. They've even created an internal rule that states if the Caliph himself speaks to the Kaffir (us) then he will be executed and replaced with one who will not.

Here's a link to what I think is the best analysis of ISIS politically and motivationally that I've seen:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

"You THINK you know what I am, but I KNOW that you're an idiot. And in the morning when you wake up you'll still be a bleedin idiot"

Assumption again. Well done you. It's like watching a little child scream unfair.

And you're a fascist. Here's the definition from Websters (for kids) dictionary.

" a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition "

Note how this doesn't require right wing idealism. Fascist !~ Nazi.

Re: Pity they didn't shoot him

You're not a Nazi, that's true.

...but you are a fascist.

If you do not understand the distinction, I recommend some research.

Re: Give me liberty or...

" I don't damn all people of the middle east, only those in ISIS, Al Qaeda and Iran."

Why Iran and not Saudi?

Re: bullying ...

"Interned for his views"

Sounds to me like you'd be happier living in ISIS rather than the UK. You see, liberties, such as freedom of speech, is one of the primary tenets we are fighting against absolutist ideologies such as those espoused by our (unofficial) enemy.

But, for fun, lets entertain the idea that having a radical opinion, one that criticises or even condemns the government du jour, or the broader idea of a society such as the UK as a whole, can get you imprisoned or even summarily executed (for the crime of having an unpopular view). Such a law, I'm sure you'd agree, would have to be proposed by the elected government of the nation in question, and would, no doubt, be reflective of that nations majority opinion. After all, we're not talking about some dictatorship or theocracy here, are we? We're talking about the UK.

So...a law gets passed whereby the majority opinion is paramount and critical, minority, even offensive opinions gets you a bullet to the back of the head, or imprisonment, or waterboarding or some other childish and unenlightened revenge. Why, I bet we could even make it automatic and remove legal representation on the basis of the legal status being "enemy combatant" rather than "criminal"!

*glances at the upvote/downvote ratio on your posts*

...It would appear that your opinion, strongly held and offensive to many people here, would be at odds with the sample majority. You are at odds with the majority, democratic opinion.

Guilty. Bang.

Do you not see this flaw in your argument, or are you going to simply rest on the idea of white/uk privilege ('cos this laws for THEM not US!).

Back to EDL land with you.

Re: Note to those who don't want to be subject to RIPA

"whatever they can find to make your life difficult"

If they can't get you for terrorism, they'll find "images" on your computer and get you for that instead. That's why they seize computers physically rather than simply going to GCHQ and asking their vast intelligence to provide intercepts, like they keep saying they can. That's how they stop all the terrorpedos from getting us, isn't it?!

Re: So What?

"Even giving a voice to these criminals makes me suspect the news outlets intentions."

That line could be lifted directly from the dialogue in 1984. Have you ever heard the phrase "to be made an unperson"?

In short, if we allow the complete censorship of criminals, or enemies, then the state gains the capability to brand anyone an enemy (for us to hate) without argument or debate. The States enemies become our enemies....should that be the case?

Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

"they've got enough powers to intercept and store our communications, CCTV on every street corner, recording of cell phone tower attachments and ANPR movements."

They even made a (laughable) program on C4 to showcase how NO ONE CAN EVER ESCAPE THEIR MIGHTY SKILLZ! Seriously, did anyone watch that guff?

Re: "Yes, go on kiddies, mod me down"

"Ad hominem - the usual response of the those of the left leaning persuation."

I think you should examine Matt Bryants posts for a master class in ad hominem attacks, and he's as far from the left as you can get without invading Poland.

Re: Mage Communications service providers have a critical role

"are insisting on the court process preceding the take-down..."

Yes. That's how our law is intended to work. Do you, by way of analogy, agree with the way DMCA takedowns occur on YouTube? i.e. the takedown happens if any complaint is received, regardless of source (including ones generated by bots using algorithms), and then the channel owner has the right to appeal against it? Should this be how our law works across the board? We *think* you burgled that house, so you're arrested, stuck in jail, assumed guilty but may *appeal* your innocence? That idea of law doesn't belong in the UK or any "progressive" country surely.

"4000 take-downs a month and the problem is increasing?"

Evidence please, rather than hearsay from those under scrutiny or other vested interests. Should be a simple matter to ask the courts, in their capacity as an independent power, to release a verified count of cases without revealing any details at all. Of course, if these takedown occurred without judicial oversight then there would be no such record. And no legal process.

"Wrong because the Police do not need to wait for a crime to happen, they can act to prevent crime without interfering with the assumption of innocence."

Actually, according to the head of MI5, this is not the case. In a recent interview on Radio 4, when questioned about the Rigby case, he noted that the intelligence services had Adubwale under surveillance for some time before the attack was carried out, but they could not act as Adubwale had not committed any crime or infringement he could be held for. So, either you're wrong, or the head of MI5 lied, live, on air, to the nation.

Re: Foot, meet high kinetic energy lead dispensing device

Is that an American critiquing British food?

You don't want to go there..... :D

"Let's for a minute think of the humble carrier pigeon, if terrorists(insurgents/freedom fighters take your pick) were using pigeons the governments would devise a way to capture them...."

Dunno mate, the Terrorpedos have provably been using CARS as bombs for quite some time, and to drive around the country in pursuit of their nefarious schemes. Gov hasn't done much about all those dangerous cars! They've not even told the car companies its THEIR responsibility to stop terrorists using them somehow, but then they don't really understand car technologies, so they probably realise they're not in a position to dictate how the car companies should go about it....

Re: Hysteria

The Establishment has won. Terrorism was their excuse.

Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

"Socialism is about understanding how humanity, as a whole, can have their lives improved. Capitalism is about securing wealth and power for the individual at the cost of the greater whole.

And yet in any place & any time they've been applied, capitalism has improved the lives of humainty as a whole, while socialism has brought only misery and poverty."

I don't entirely disagree with you, and neither did Karl Marx who pointed out that it required a certain level of wealth, comfort and education to afford to be socialist. If you're scratching in the dirt for your next meal, you can't afford altruism. Marx believed that America was the natural birthplace for socialism, not Russia. We, I believe, are wealthy enough to share and to improve the lives of others without necessarily seeking a pecuniary profit alone. I believe that no child should starve, no illness should go untreated and no mind should be left uneducated, and I don't think that those rights should have a "subject to status" tag on them. From each according to their skills, to each according to their needs.

"The true use of wealth is in its wise deployment, not in its accrual.

The problem you have with that hypothesis, is that your view of wise deployment will be different to mine, which is different to grahams, which is different to... and so it goes. The left often mistake their view as being "good" and all other perspectives as "evil", which is simplistic nonsense."

Yes, again I agree, but are we in accord in saying that the simple withholding of wealth is therefore not wise, because it is not deployed at all? Surely some use, preferably for the greatest number of beneficiaries, is better than no use?

The needs of the many.....?

Re: Labour... now unelectable

We use Plutonium and Uranium in our reactors because the waste can be reprocessed into weapon grade materials, usable in our Trident program (and exportable to other countries).

If we use Thorium in our reactors, the amount of waste is vastly reduced, but we can't enrich it for weapon grade material.

Methinks the solution is obvious and non-profitable, therefore I would nationalise the nuclear power industry and sell the energy at cost to UK industry, making us more than competitive, greener and less reliant on foreign fossil fuels.

Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

What is the point of wealth, success and power if not to improve the world as a whole? Yes, you may start with yourself, but to stop there is the sign of stunted growth. Socialism is about understanding how humanity, as a whole, can have their lives improved. Capitalism is about securing wealth and power for the individual at the cost of the greater whole.

The true use of wealth is in its wise deployment, not in its accrual.