Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    David Cameron says the Data Retention and Investigation Powers Bill is needed to fight "criminals and terrorists".

    But civil liberties groups say it infringes the right to privacy and sets a dangerous precedent.

    It comes after the European Court of Justice struck down existing powers.

    An EU directive requiring phone and internet companies to retain communications data - when and who their customers called, texted and emailed but not what was said - for a 12 month period was ruled unlawful in April by the European Court.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28237111

    Seriously? We've already vehemently rejected this, all thats changed in the meantime is that we now have a better understanding of how the police, intelligence services and MPs abuse these powers, use knowledge of dodgy behavior for the purposes of blackmail and manage to lose any evidence gathered when it doesn't suit them. The answer force it through without any debate. What a vile bunch of *****.can we really trust them with these powers?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's actually not that much of a change from existing powers. The point, as far as I know, is to retain current powers to allow for data retention by ISPs, which the EU used to enforce and has now dropped.

    i.e. EU decided that data retention laws were archaic and threw out the legislation. UK government desperately wants to keep it and also for data to be retained for longer.

    That said, the government, again, is abusing the "to protect you from terrorism, protect your children from paedophiles and nothing to hide, nothing to fear" rhetoric again. In any other country, citizens would call politicians out on their bull for saying it. In ours, people just gobble it up.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    It's actually not that much of a change from existing powers. The point, as far as I know, is to retain current powers to allow for data retention by ISPs, which the EU used to enforce and has now dropped.

    i.e. EU decided that data retention laws were archaic and threw out the legislation. UK government desperately wants to keep it and also for data to be retained for longer.
    I don't think anyone other than a select few know exactly what change this will mean as it has all been carried out and pushed through in secret. But May has made no secret of her desperation to get more powers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...errorists.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    I don't think anyone other than a select few know exactly what change this will mean as it has all been carried out and pushed through in secret. But May has made no secret of her desperation to get more powers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...errorists.html
    Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you. I see it as nothing more than the thin end of the wedge and I have no doubts that there's probably some obscure legislation that they're going to push through, piggybacking on this.

    The EU sees the legislation as being archaic and has thrown it out accordingly. The UK government is adamant on keeping the police state status quo.

    The BBC propaganda is already being rolled out. That one sided reporting one from one perspective.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    Don't get me wrong
    I didn't, i reped you .

    (Original post by Tabris)
    The BBC propaganda is already being rolled out. That one sided reporting one from one perspective.
    Tell me about it. Tuned into radio 4 this morning to what sounded like a eulogy for Teresa May, was just about to start celebrating but it turns out shes not dead, nauseating.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    I didn't, i reped you .



    Tell me about it. Tuned into radio 4 this morning to what sounded like a eulogy for Teresa May, was just about to start celebrating but it turns out shes not dead, nauseating.
    Ha, fair enough.

    It's crazy how people see the BBC as a respectable and unbiased news source. Watching BBC News this afternoon and just about every story has involved interviewing people who support this legislation, piggy-backing on the current anti-EU consensus and creating a narrative where the EU is trying to force their will upon us again and any that is against this legislation has been demoted to a footnote or passing mention. And of course, the good old political favourites, it's needed to stop terrorism, paedophilia and other organised crime, because if you don't agree with us you're either a criminal or support criminal activity.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    It's needed to stop terrorism, paedophilia and other organised crime, because if you don't agree with us you're either a criminal or support criminal activity.
    That's rich coming from a bunch of paedophiles and child abuse enablers.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    That said, the government, again, is abusing the "to protect you from terrorism, protect your children from paedophiles and nothing to hide, nothing to fear" rhetoric again. In any other country, citizens would call politicians out on their bull for saying it. In ours, people just gobble it up.
    Does that include all the paedophiles in the government? :teehee:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    Does that include all the paedophiles in the government? :teehee:
    (Original post by n00)
    That's rich coming from a bunch of paedophiles and child abuse enablers.
    That's one of the funniest things about all of this. The timing also makes it a conspiracy theorist gold mine.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    bump because people need to know about this
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Quite simply the political establishment knew very well they wouldn't be able to get away with this crap if they allowed any sort of discourse so they have decided to push it through in 2 days on the back of backroom dealings and off the record pay offs.

    HOOOOOORAY FOR DEMOCRACY!!!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28306819
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28289331

    Lo, behold, the BBC tucked these little articles away. Not surprising in the slightest.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28306819
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28289331

    Lo, behold, the BBC tucked these little articles away. Not surprising in the slightest.
    Well, the first has already been commented on in another thread.
    The second of those was news early yesterday, so naturally is 'tucked away' now as it's old and been overtaken by more recent news. It barely even qualifies as news, really, it's stuff that's been known about for a long time, it was just trotted out then because the PM was at Farnborough so had to be seen to say something about the military and aerospace. Did you even bother to check the time and date of it?


    Not our fault if you don't keep up with the news, but they've definitely not been tucked away.


    EDIT, referred to them in the wrong order originally.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Well, the first of those was news early yesterday, so naturally is 'tucked away' now as it's old and been overtaken by more recent news. It barely even qualifies as news, really, it's stuff that's been known about for a long time, it was just trotted out then because the PM was at Farnborough so had to be seen to say something about the military and aerospace.
    The second has already been commented on in another thread.

    Not our fault if you don't keep up with the news, but they've definitely not been tucked away.
    It didn't make headlines or the BBC's front page yesterday. Most of the day, the Butler Sloss quitting the abuse enquiry and some other unrelated articles stayed up on front page through the entire day. If you went into certain sections, sure, just like the stuff about GCHQ activities is the top of the tech section.

    Not really too bothered about it being commented in another; I don't scour threads on TSR.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    It didn't make headlines or the BBC's front page yesterday. Most of the day, the whole Butler Sloss and some other unrelated articles stayed up front. If you went into certain sections, sure.

    Not really too bothered about it being commented in another; I don't scour threads on TSR.
    Because it's largely irrelevant. It's not new money, it's not new programs being spent on. It's barely a boost for the RAF and most professionals aren't that excited about it. source
    And anyway, I found it pretty prominently placed.

    But point stands, you can't moan about things like that being hidden away when they weren't. Nor can you make them out to be bigger news than they are. It only qualifies as news because the PM said it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Because it's largely irrelevant. It's not new money, it's not new programs being spent on. It's barely a boost for the RAF and most professionals aren't that excited about it. source
    And anyway, I found it pretty prominently placed.

    But point stands, you can't moan about things like that being hidden away when they weren't. Nor can you make them out to be bigger news than they are. It only qualifies as news because the PM said it.
    Relevance is a matter of personal interest. It may not be as relevant to you, and admittedly most of the general public who are generally neutral or in support of this kind of thing, as it is to me.

    I personally, don't think it was prominently placed at all. Being tucked away isn't quite as extreme as being hidden away either.

    You can continue to make snide remarks, it's not a big deal to me. It's just a matter of preference that I think these articles should be coming way ahead of others. There's also the matter of browsing habits, as the way I browse through and pick out stories from the Beeb may be completely different to how you browse through the site.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    Relevance is a matter of personal interest. It's not relevant to you, and admittedly most of the general public who are generally neutral or in support of this kind of thing, but it is to me.

    I personally, don't think it was prominently placed at all. Being tucked away isn't quite as extreme as being hidden away either.

    You can continue to make snide remarks, it's not a big deal to me. It's just a matter of preference that I think these articles should be coming way ahead of others.
    The latter one, about GCHQ, yes, you have a point.

    But the former, about a defence underspend and equipment we already possess... why should that be "way ahead of others"?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    The latter one, about GCHQ, yes, you have a point.

    But the former, about a defence underspend and equipment we already possess... why should that be "way ahead of others"?
    Tinfoil hat paranoia. Just re-read it. It's not as relevant as I thought it was when I read it yesterday.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    Tinfoil hat paranoia. Just re-read it. It's not as relevant as I thought it was when I read it yesterday.
    Aha, figured as much.

    You have a legit point about the GCHQ one, but some - frankly - minor defence contracts being extended for programs we already run are really inconsequential, PM just felt like he had to announce something while at Farnborough. Mouth music, really.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28305309

    Now with 100% more relevance. A few MPs speaking sense about how it's ridiculous to rush something like this through parliament and the majority just voting in favour. I'd hope the Lords have some more sense than the Commons.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.