MI5 Chief warns of more Muslim attacks on the British public

I wouldn't piss off the muslim world by invading their countries personally.

Every time someone in a suit argues for greater control over the population in case of attacks by perceived "armed terrorist gangs", it really does make you question their sanity. How can you argue that you are protecting democracy by abolishing it's hallmarks?


Oh and these "armed terrorist gangs" almost always turn out just to be political opponents of the regime in power. So reality sets in and we discover that "terrorism" doesn't really exist - It's just a word used by regimes, including the one here in the UK, to try and discredit and persecute their political enemies.

As well as this he personally is accountable to the home secretary who is accountable again to MP's. Democracy seems fairly well protected in this instance. He is advocating that they need some access to personal information he also throughout the speech stresses how this must be legally obtained and be admissible in court.

I think you would struggle to define the Taliban or al Qaeda as a political opponent to the government in Westminster.

Thank you for pointing this one out. There is always a degree of token "accountability". Kim Jong Un is "accountable" to a committee of North Koreans, MP's who voted in favour of war against Iraq were "accountable" to their constituents - the majority of which were against the war. While on paper the accountability is there, in each of these cases I think the message needs to be clear - The accountability is not there in practice.

I'm glad you brought up the last point. I deliberately did this to see if someone would bring it up - For years now, the BBC has referred to terror groups in Syria as legitimate political opposition groups. I wanted to see how you'd react to me calling terror groups in the UK legitimate political opposition. Is it a legitimate form of political opposition to start suicide bombing government ministers, blowing up buildings in the capital (like Damascus), and killing service personnel (such as Lee Rigby). It is either OK for both terrorists in the UK to do it and terrorists in Syria to do it, or it is not OK for either to do it. You cannot say it is ok for one group to do while saying it is acceptable for another group to do exactly the same thing.

If it's ok with you, I was more bringing that up as something for us all to think about, not as a talking point that can be discussed further, as I'm sure it would go off topic when pro-rebel posters get creative with their imaginations and tell us all about the fictional "tyranny" people live in in Syria. But it sure is nice that "evil" Assad lets Syrian Guy post his anti-government diatribe on here all the time )

Wikileaks/Snowdon expose a huge trans-atlantic mass surveillance operation and all of a sudden leading security figures come out with scare stories... coincidence?

I can see both sides to be honest. On the one hand the techniques the Snowden files revealed undoubtedly would help the security agencies to combat terrorism as well as organised crime, but on the other hand the public, I think, has a right to know that in the process it's privacy has been invaded.

The problem is that there are <i>3</i> sides. Not 2.<br />
<br />
- &quot;the techniques the Snowden files revealed undoubtedly would help the security agencies to combat terrorism as well as organised crime&quot;, this is true<br />
- the techniques revealed allows the people who wish to keep things secret and unmonitored to carry on working in secret by avoiding using methods that can be found out, making it harder for the security agencies to do their job and keep the public/country safe<br />
- &quot;the public has a right to know that in the process it's privacy has been invaded&quot;.<br />
<br />
<br />
The question we have to ask ourselves is which one of those do we want to limit?<br />
<br />
We can tell the public nothing (including silencing journalists) and develop the methods to monitor everything in a bid to keep them safe or we can scale back the monitoring and risk people being put in harm's way. Neither option is politically 'good'.<br />
<br />
Intellectual freedom or life. Which one do you value more? It's not an easy question to ask, hence why this debate isn't as black and white as some would wish it to be.

I thought this was old news. Al Qaeda will continue to attempt to kill us in the name of Islam until they are crushed, in which case another group will have a go instead. What we need in this country is proper integration. You can't hate a group of people who you socialise with and enjoy the company of, so the proliferation of that needs to happen. That means speaking English and not hiding your face. Also, stop ghettos forming by putting council houses in different places rather than all in certain areas of London. Nutters are still going to kill people, but it's harder to isolate young people searching for a purpose in life with an 'us and them' mentality if everyone mixes.

Easy for me. Life. I would much prefer to be safer than to know what the security services are doing.

<br />
<br />

Easy for me. Life. I would much prefer to be safer than to know what the security services are doing.

You talk about putting them in different places, but what if those other places dont want them?

The problem is that there are 3 sides. Not 2.

- "the techniques the Snowden files revealed undoubtedly would help the security agencies to combat terrorism as well as organised crime", this is true
- the techniques revealed allows the people who wish to keep things secret and unmonitored to carry on working in secret by avoiding using methods that can be found out, making it harder for the security agencies to do their job and keep the public/country safe
- "the public has a right to know that in the process it's privacy has been invaded".


The question we have to ask ourselves is which one of those do we want to limit?

We can tell the public nothing (including silencing journalists) and develop the methods to monitor everything in a bid to keep them safe or we can scale back the monitoring and risk people being put in harm's way. Neither option is politically 'good'.

Intellectual freedom or life. Which one do you value more? It's not an easy question to ask, hence why this debate isn't as black and white as some would wish it to be.

To be honest I don't think it can be boiled down to intellectual freedom vs life either, because we're talking about 2 extremes, neither of which are likely to occur at the moment anyway (intellectual freedom equalling, if what we're being told is to be believed, us being open to terrorism, and life meaning total state surveillance in which terrorist attacks will still be successful occasionally due to chance and luck anyway, while the rest of us have no privacy from the government).

I think they need balance really - only spy on those deemed to be a threat to the public - the problem comes with how you define that and how you discover whether someone is a threat or not - I cannot answer that question unfortunately, as I just don't know how you'd do it, but I certainly don't think mass surveillance is the way to go - even if governments at the moment don't use such powers in ways they shouldn't, the point is that it gives them the power to if they wanted to - power which i think they shouldn't have.

Then again... I think this debate is similar to nuclear weapons in a way... the fact is the technology is here now, and banning it's use doesn't make it go away - what's needed i think is a mature debate on how it's supposed to be used, and strict guidelines set to control it's use to ensure it's not misused and people's privacy is protected... that might sound quite "soundbite-ish" but I don't think there is much more to say than that.

You might say that, but then others would/could counter "what is the point of life if you are not free to live it the way you want to, without someone looking over your shoulder?".

It's not a simple issue. We should all stop pretending it is.

How do you know you're safer?

Sort that out before letting them in.

I AM free to live my life the way I want to and never look over my shoulder. If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

You might not be looking over your shoulder, but how do you know someone else isn't?

How do they know you're not a person intend on doing harm if they're not looking over your shoulder at what you're writing and who you're in contact with? Are you really totally free if all that's going on?


Sure, if you do nothing wrong then you've got nothing to hide, but how do they know that until they look at you?

The security services have no reason at all to look at me and even if they did I do not mind as they would find nothing and note that I am no danger and then leave me alone after that. I personally really don't see the problem.

You reckon? You don't think they're aware that people can change their minds, or try to hide things, so might periodically check up on you again?

But that's very much the point, if you're for total security, then they don't need reason to look at you - after all, by then it might be too late - they'll look at you regardless.

You might not mind that intrusion - but intrusion it certainly is. It is a removal of your personal freedom.

You might think all of that's fine. But can you really not see how others might not, even if they didn't have anything to hide?

As by snooping on e-mails, phone calls etc. the security services are more likely to find vital intel.

Nice one Sherlock, who would ever have imagined that there could be reprisals after several innocent countries were invaded, occupied and oppressed.