Discussion
It's only been a matter of time before Jacqui Smith came face to face with the resignation question.
She's never been particularly likeable, although, to be fair, no-one is charismatic enough to appear likeable while selling the inane and vindictive policies emanating from the Home Office recently. The expenses scandal serious damaged her both in terms of her crude claim for a second home allowance and the renting of questionable movies using public money.
But the final nail on the coffin, according to the growing media consensus, is the Damian Green affair. This is an unfortunate angle for newspapers to take. We're in danger of overlooking the real problems through an unhelpful concentration on personality. Jacqui Smith is not the problem. The British government is the problem.
The decision to pursue Green on the basis of national security typifies what has happened to the Home Office since September 11th. Two phrases have become widespread, spreading disinformation and covering up a myriad of government aims: national security and terrorism.
This morning, the home secretary was forced into launching a consultation on local councils snooping on resident using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), a piece of legislation which was always sold as concerning terrorism and serious organised crime. When RIPA was passed, only nine organisations- including police and security services - were allowed to use it. Now 795 bodies, including all 475 local authorities, may do so. They have opted to do so in the most juvenile and predatory manner imaginable, by spying on people to discover whether they are lying about their school catchments area, or for dog littering, or for putting their rubbish out on the wrong day. And why not? They took their inspiration from the government: justify yourself with terrorism, and then do whatever you want.
Protests are now regularly policed under anti-terror laws, despite being quite the opposite - an expression of why our country is a decent and free place to live. And not just large, street-level demos. Remember Walter Wolfgang, the 82 year old daring enough to shout "nonsense" when Jack Straw was speaking precisely that at the 2005 Labour conference? He was held under anti-terror legislation. It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
ID cards, one of the most spectacularly ill-thought-through policies of recent times - on any number of levels - are based on terrorism as well, despite the fact that it is near-on impossible to find a security analyst willing to concur with this view.
Earlier this month it became illegal to take photographs of police officers. Read that sentence again and fully take it in. A little earlier in the year photography which could be of assistance to terrorists was also made illegal. That is, of course, basically all photography, whenever it is in the interests of government or the police to confiscate cameras or film.
Now the upcoming data communication bill plans to put all phone calls, emails and texts on a centralised database. Earlier this month, all internet users' emails and online phone calls began being stored. They didn't even bother going through parliament, they just expanded an EC directive on telecom providers. Now, the Home Office is looking at how to establish similar programmes for social networking site like Facebook or MySpace. When new technology rears its head, the government's first reaction is to find out how to control it. Why? Because of terrorism. Because of national security.
The governmentdoes care about terrorism, for three reasons. Firstly, it's populated by humans, who, despite their capacity for brutality, generally do care when fellow humans are blown up. Secondly, because terrorist atrocities are an electoral disaster. And thirdly, because even in the age of al-Qaida terrorism, the ultimate goal of terrorists will be to hit the seat of government. Eventually, it would be politicians in the firing line, not commuters.
But the British government instantly understood how anti-terrorism rhetoric could make its life easier. It is in the nature of government to gather as much information as possible, so it can make more efficient decisions. It's in the nature of government to want as little opposition as possible. It's not particularly malevolent; it's just the nature of the beast. And so we have seen the blurring of the line between dissent and terrorism. And we have seen it eat up our data - despite being entirely unable to guarantee it won't be lost or stolen - with wanton abandon. And now, opposition politicians embarrassing the government are arrested, dragged to a police station and told they could face life imprisonment. All because of 'national security'.
Governments throughout history have used exactly the same smokescreen for the same reasons. And now our government is doing it. Replacing Jacqui Smith isn't just pointless; it's unhelpful, because it drags the debate away from what really needs to be done. If only our problems could be solves by a prompt sacking. They can't. They are much more severe and deep-seated than that. They won't be fixed until the people of Britain decide they won't accept their rights and privacy being taken away anymore.
link here: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/talking_politics/art...
She's never been particularly likeable, although, to be fair, no-one is charismatic enough to appear likeable while selling the inane and vindictive policies emanating from the Home Office recently. The expenses scandal serious damaged her both in terms of her crude claim for a second home allowance and the renting of questionable movies using public money.
But the final nail on the coffin, according to the growing media consensus, is the Damian Green affair. This is an unfortunate angle for newspapers to take. We're in danger of overlooking the real problems through an unhelpful concentration on personality. Jacqui Smith is not the problem. The British government is the problem.
The decision to pursue Green on the basis of national security typifies what has happened to the Home Office since September 11th. Two phrases have become widespread, spreading disinformation and covering up a myriad of government aims: national security and terrorism.
This morning, the home secretary was forced into launching a consultation on local councils snooping on resident using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), a piece of legislation which was always sold as concerning terrorism and serious organised crime. When RIPA was passed, only nine organisations- including police and security services - were allowed to use it. Now 795 bodies, including all 475 local authorities, may do so. They have opted to do so in the most juvenile and predatory manner imaginable, by spying on people to discover whether they are lying about their school catchments area, or for dog littering, or for putting their rubbish out on the wrong day. And why not? They took their inspiration from the government: justify yourself with terrorism, and then do whatever you want.
Protests are now regularly policed under anti-terror laws, despite being quite the opposite - an expression of why our country is a decent and free place to live. And not just large, street-level demos. Remember Walter Wolfgang, the 82 year old daring enough to shout "nonsense" when Jack Straw was speaking precisely that at the 2005 Labour conference? He was held under anti-terror legislation. It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
ID cards, one of the most spectacularly ill-thought-through policies of recent times - on any number of levels - are based on terrorism as well, despite the fact that it is near-on impossible to find a security analyst willing to concur with this view.
Earlier this month it became illegal to take photographs of police officers. Read that sentence again and fully take it in. A little earlier in the year photography which could be of assistance to terrorists was also made illegal. That is, of course, basically all photography, whenever it is in the interests of government or the police to confiscate cameras or film.
Now the upcoming data communication bill plans to put all phone calls, emails and texts on a centralised database. Earlier this month, all internet users' emails and online phone calls began being stored. They didn't even bother going through parliament, they just expanded an EC directive on telecom providers. Now, the Home Office is looking at how to establish similar programmes for social networking site like Facebook or MySpace. When new technology rears its head, the government's first reaction is to find out how to control it. Why? Because of terrorism. Because of national security.
The governmentdoes care about terrorism, for three reasons. Firstly, it's populated by humans, who, despite their capacity for brutality, generally do care when fellow humans are blown up. Secondly, because terrorist atrocities are an electoral disaster. And thirdly, because even in the age of al-Qaida terrorism, the ultimate goal of terrorists will be to hit the seat of government. Eventually, it would be politicians in the firing line, not commuters.
But the British government instantly understood how anti-terrorism rhetoric could make its life easier. It is in the nature of government to gather as much information as possible, so it can make more efficient decisions. It's in the nature of government to want as little opposition as possible. It's not particularly malevolent; it's just the nature of the beast. And so we have seen the blurring of the line between dissent and terrorism. And we have seen it eat up our data - despite being entirely unable to guarantee it won't be lost or stolen - with wanton abandon. And now, opposition politicians embarrassing the government are arrested, dragged to a police station and told they could face life imprisonment. All because of 'national security'.
Governments throughout history have used exactly the same smokescreen for the same reasons. And now our government is doing it. Replacing Jacqui Smith isn't just pointless; it's unhelpful, because it drags the debate away from what really needs to be done. If only our problems could be solves by a prompt sacking. They can't. They are much more severe and deep-seated than that. They won't be fixed until the people of Britain decide they won't accept their rights and privacy being taken away anymore.
link here: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/talking_politics/art...
Sheets Tabuer said:
What I don't get is in all the time of the troubles in NI none of these measures were put in place. How can they justify to us now the need when we have all seen having terrorists on your doorstep does not mean you will have 100s of masked men running down your street.
If people belive this Government are acting on OUR behalf....you are seriously misguided!!!
All these measures are to control the public, and not prevent terrorism.
Why do you think they want people to log their journies when 'leaving' the country, but they dont care about people coming 'Into' the country.
The most successful thing our goverments have achieved other the last 40 years more so in the last 20 is to make the general public not interested in politics.
This means they can implement and change laws that have stood our country well for many centuries,that many lives were lost to up-hold.
Most of my friends do not vote because they can't see it making any difference as they feel the goverment and ministers have there own agenda,to make there mark regardless of what it could mean to future generations.
We are going further down the line of the state having access to everything,or it being stored and then used against you/us when the time is right.
We can not defend ourselves from the state as we are un-armed(Very handy for the state).
We are sitting ducks,our childrens children will pay for our errors and mis-guided folly allowing then to get away with it.
As said already,1st they came for the Jews.............
This means they can implement and change laws that have stood our country well for many centuries,that many lives were lost to up-hold.
Most of my friends do not vote because they can't see it making any difference as they feel the goverment and ministers have there own agenda,to make there mark regardless of what it could mean to future generations.
We are going further down the line of the state having access to everything,or it being stored and then used against you/us when the time is right.
We can not defend ourselves from the state as we are un-armed(Very handy for the state).
We are sitting ducks,our childrens children will pay for our errors and mis-guided folly allowing then to get away with it.
As said already,1st they came for the Jews.............
Edited by wrightyrs on Saturday 18th April 04:09
Forum | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff