UK General Election/Politics

by Roller_Coaster Wed 03 May 2017, 4:22 pm

First topic message reminder :

Here's a possible thread for it all, despite the lack of political input from me to start it!

Mods if you want to/can cut and paste the recent obviously political "discussions" from the Anything Goes, here might serve?

by MontysMerkin Wed 24 May 2017, 9:16 am

beninho wrote:I should not criticise the Great Leader, the secret police ~~may be~~ would be (if she'd got her way) monitoring my computers.

by super_realist Wed 24 May 2017, 9:20 am

You sound paranoid Monty.

by MontysMerkin Wed 24 May 2017, 9:29 am

Her snooping charter was right dodgy, got rebuffed by the ISC, then modified extensively due to pressure from the courts, still not passed in law because European courts have decided mass surveillance is illegal.
Do you ever read the news soops or just pluck whatever thought happens to float by?

by super_realist Wed 24 May 2017, 9:35 am

Of course I read the news, but unlike you I don't think the government is out to tread on me at every point of my life. ou sound like one of those silly "anonymous" guys with the guy fawkes mask. Have you got a picture of Assange and Snowden on your ceiling?

Try getting on with your life instead of worrying about something which won't affect you.

by MontysMerkin Wed 24 May 2017, 9:45 am

But it does affect me.

by JAS Wed 24 May 2017, 9:54 am

super_realist wrote:I'm sick of hearing about "wages being driven lower" and it being blamed on any particular party.

Things under Labour weren't exactly rosy either with 33% tax, high inflation, winter of discontent and constant strikes. Fortunately I just missed the tuition fees that they introduced saving me 10's of thousands.

There has always been income equality, those who work harder, those who don't, those who have education, those who don't. What do you expect and why would you begrudge those who have become billionaires through their own intelligence and skill? These people take the risks.

I've retrained a couple of times to cope with the changes in the job scene, why don't others?
Sometimes we have to stop blaming "the system" and get off our arses and improve our own prospects instead of waiting for the government to hand us it on a plate. You don't need to go through your life earning 20k like Mac, you can do something about it.

Of course wages for ordinary working people are being driven down and I have to say it takes a damn good impersonation of an ostrich not to see that. Wages for the majority have been pegged for years Super it's part of what's called austerity. Meanwhile boardroom pay has soared ahead, it would appear that there's a blockage in "trickle down economics"

Of course there's always been income inequality, that's not the issue, it's the current SCALE of it that's the issue. If the corporate world choose to ignore the implications of such skewed inequality then government should have a role to play in trying to achieve an overall balance for society. This shower's approach seems to be..."well done on screwing the workers and relocating their jobs away, that's a great way to shrink the state, here have some more tax breaks, just let us know how much corp tax you want to pay and we can come to an arrangement."

I too have retrained several times to keep myself current and employable and do pay a significant proportion of my tax at the higher rate as I guess you do. Here's the thing though Super, not everybody in society is like that. You have to have a welfare state that is there to help people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own back on their feet. Yes there needs to be a better way of dealing with lazy scroungers who abuse the system and I totally get "why should those in work support those out of work" in the context of the lazy abusers of the system NOT the majority. The other thing about the benefits system and bringing it back around to wages being driven down. Why do some full time workers have to rely on benefits???

by Diggers Wed 24 May 2017, 9:57 am

Paranoia - not a good thing, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories really. To just accept that snooping policies are fine and that they possibly don't affect us, naive. We need to know what the govt are doing/plan to do, it's basic civil liberties within a democracy. If you don't happen to care, fair enough, but I don't think you can criticise anyone for actively thinking it's important.

by super_realist Wed 24 May 2017, 10:02 am

Please explain how any surveillance might affect a law abiding citizen or how it could impact your life.

I'm not saying "they are fine" I'm saying there isn't anything in them that I ought to worry about to the level Monty is vascillating.

by MontysMerkin Wed 24 May 2017, 10:06 am

JAS wrote:
super_realist wrote:I'm sick of hearing about "wages being driven lower" and it being blamed on any particular party.

Things under Labour weren't exactly rosy either with 33% tax, high inflation, winter of discontent and constant strikes. Fortunately I just missed the tuition fees that they introduced saving me 10's of thousands.

There has always been income equality, those who work harder, those who don't, those who have education, those who don't. What do you expect and why would you begrudge those who have become billionaires through their own intelligence and skill? These people take the risks.

I've retrained a couple of times to cope with the changes in the job scene, why don't others?
Sometimes we have to stop blaming "the system" and get off our arses and improve our own prospects instead of waiting for the government to hand us it on a plate. You don't need to go through your life earning 20k like Mac, you can do something about it.

Of course wages for ordinary working people are being driven down and I have to say it takes a damn good impersonation of an ostrich not to see that. Wages for the majority have been pegged for years Super it's part of what's called austerity. Meanwhile boardroom pay has soared ahead, it would appear that there's a blockage in "trickle down economics"

Of course there's always been income inequality, that's not the issue, it's the current SCALE of it that's the issue. If the corporate world choose to ignore the implications of such skewed inequality then government should have a role to play in trying to achieve an overall balance for society. This shower's approach seems to be..."well done on screwing the workers and relocating their jobs away, that's a great way to shrink the state, here have some more tax breaks, just let us know how much corp tax you want to pay and we can come to an arrangement."

I too have retrained several times to keep myself current and employable and do pay a significant proportion of my tax at the higher rate as I guess you do. Here's the thing though Super, not everybody in society is like that. You have to have a welfare state that is there to help people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own back on their feet. Yes there needs to be a better way of dealing with lazy scroungers who abuse the system and I totally get "why should those in work support those out of work" in the context of the lazy abusers of the system NOT the majority. The other thing about the benefits system and bringing it back around to wages being driven down. Why do some full time workers have to rely on benefits???

A lot of full time workers receive benefits from the taxpayer - while their companies make millions in profit.
Even a simple fellow like super can see that a business that can't make money and employ it's workers is not a viable business.
According to CitizensUK, subsidies amount to £364m at Tesco, £221m at Asda and £182m at Sainsbury’s. Some of these figures are even higher than the total amount of corporation tax the companies paid.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 24 May 2017, 10:08 am

super_realist wrote:Please explain how any surveillance might affect a law abiding citizen or how it could impact your life.

I'm not saying "they are fine" I'm saying there isn't anything in them that I ought to worry about to the level Monty is vascillating.

It doesn't affect them at all and it's just something to moan about because it's a Tory initiative, I'm all for extra surveillance if it stops events like Monday night.

by Diggers Wed 24 May 2017, 10:11 am

super_realist wrote:Please explain how any surveillance might affect a law abiding citizen or how it could impact your life.

I'm not saying "they are fine" I'm saying there isn't anything in them that I ought to worry about to the level Monty is vascillating.

Misinterpretation, mistaken identity, the general fact that somethings in life simply do no have anything to do with the state - they do not need to know so why should they know? You can easily flip your argument to say why should any law abiding citizen be subject to govt monitoring and snooping.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 24 May 2017, 10:14 am

The state are more than welcome to know what I've got for dinner tonight, I doubt they're too interested in me though.

by Diggers Wed 24 May 2017, 10:14 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
super_realist wrote:Please explain how any surveillance might affect a law abiding citizen or how it could impact your life.

I'm not saying "they are fine" I'm saying there isn't anything in them that I ought to worry about to the level Monty is vascillating.

It doesn't affect them at all and it's just something to moan about because it's a Tory initiative, I'm all for extra surveillance if it stops events like Monday night.

The fact that it's a bad initiative, as well as being a Tory one, just happens to be a common theme.

by beninho Wed 24 May 2017, 10:17 am

Would anyone want a years worth of their browsing history, emails, messages conversations released for everyone to see?

by beninho Wed 24 May 2017, 10:19 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The state are more than welcome to know what I've got for dinner tonight, I doubt they're too interested in me though.

Can you provide your whole browsing history for the past 12 months, all of the messages you have sent online, all of your emails? Create a new thread and put them all online, with your full details name address etc. Is that ok? including bank details, login information etc. Thanks

by MontysMerkin Wed 24 May 2017, 10:22 am

Well we've been here before so no need to rehash it all. The fact is many people are uncomfortable of political parties of any colour having unfettered access to our privacy. There are historical precedents for it not always working quite as people hoped. It takes some people to stand up and talk about it to expose it, rather than those who just swallow whatever is told to them.

by MontysMerkin Wed 24 May 2017, 10:23 am

beninho wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:The state are more than welcome to know what I've got for dinner tonight, I doubt they're too interested in me though.

Can you provide your whole browsing history for the past 12 months, all of the messages you have sent online, all of your emails? Create a new thread and put them all online, with your full details name address etc. Is that ok? including bank details, login information etc. Thanks

Unlikely that an individual can but an ISP is being asked to store these details for you. You could ask them. Oh and see if they can resist selling your data to the highest bidder as well...

by super_realist Wed 24 May 2017, 10:29 am

MontysMerkin wrote:Well we've been here before so no need to rehash it all. The fact is many people are uncomfortable of political parties of any colour having unfettered access to our privacy. There are historical precedents for it not always working quite as people hoped. It takes some people to stand up and talk about it to expose it, rather than those who just swallow whatever is told to them.

In light of yesterday I've no problem if government agencies want to keep track of certain aspects of my life.

by Diggers Wed 24 May 2017, 10:31 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
super_realist wrote:Please explain how any surveillance might affect a law abiding citizen or how it could impact your life.

I'm not saying "they are fine" I'm saying there isn't anything in them that I ought to worry about to the level Monty is vascillating.

It doesn't affect them at all and it's just something to moan about because it's a Tory initiative, I'm all for extra surveillance if it stops events like Monday night.

Another way to stop events like Monday would be to slash the numbers of police and backroom staff....hmmm....
I wonder who was Home Secretary for those initiatives?

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 24 May 2017, 10:31 am

beninho wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:The state are more than welcome to know what I've got for dinner tonight, I doubt they're too interested in me though.

Can you provide your whole browsing history for the past 12 months, all of the messages you have sent online, all of your emails? Create a new thread and put them all online, with your full details name address etc. Is that ok? including bank details, login information etc. Thanks

That's not what the state are doing is it so p1ss poor attempt.

by super_realist Wed 24 May 2017, 10:33 am

Diggers wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:
super_realist wrote:Please explain how any surveillance might affect a law abiding citizen or how it could impact your life.

I'm not saying "they are fine" I'm saying there isn't anything in them that I ought to worry about to the level Monty is vascillating.

It doesn't affect them at all and it's just something to moan about because it's a Tory initiative, I'm all for extra surveillance if it stops events like Monday night.

Another way to stop events like Monday would be to slash the numbers of police and backroom staff....hmmm....
I wonder who was Home Secretary for those initiatives?

Don't be so naïve Diggers. As the IRA used to say. They only have to be lucky once. No amount of intelligence or policing can stop every event.

by MontysMerkin Wed 24 May 2017, 10:33 am

super_realist wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:Well we've been here before so no need to rehash it all. The fact is many people are uncomfortable of political parties of any colour having unfettered access to our privacy. There are historical precedents for it not always working quite as people hoped. It takes some people to stand up and talk about it to expose it, rather than those who just swallow whatever is told to them.

In light of yesterday I've no problem if government agencies want to keep track of ~~certain~~ all aspects of my life.

I hardly think collecting your browsing history would have had much impact on yesterdays events, no matter how special you feel.

by super_realist Wed 24 May 2017, 10:35 am

Why wouldn't it Monty? If I'd been browsing how to make a bomb for instance wouldn't that be useful to know who is looking at that?

by Diggers Wed 24 May 2017, 10:36 am

super_realist wrote:
Diggers wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:
super_realist wrote:Please explain how any surveillance might affect a law abiding citizen or how it could impact your life.

I'm not saying "they are fine" I'm saying there isn't anything in them that I ought to worry about to the level Monty is vascillating.

It doesn't affect them at all and it's just something to moan about because it's a Tory initiative, I'm all for extra surveillance if it stops events like Monday night.

Another way to stop events like Monday would be to slash the numbers of police and backroom staff....hmmm....
I wonder who was Home Secretary for those initiatives?

Don't be so naïve Diggers. As the IRA used to say. They only have to be lucky once. No amount of intelligence or policing can stop every event.

I'm naive, yet thinking everyone can retrain at the drop of a hat isn't? OK....

by beninho Wed 24 May 2017, 10:39 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
beninho wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:The state are more than welcome to know what I've got for dinner tonight, I doubt they're too interested in me though.

Can you provide your whole browsing history for the past 12 months, all of the messages you have sent online, all of your emails? Create a new thread and put them all online, with your full details name address etc. Is that ok? including bank details, login information etc. Thanks

That's not what the state are doing is it so p1ss poor attempt.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/ip-bill-law-details-passed

"Under the IP Bill, security services and police forces will be able to access communications data when it is needed to help their investigations. This means internet history data (Internet Connection Records, in official speak) will have to be stored for 12 months.

munications service providers, which include everything from internet companies and messenger services to postal services, will have to store meta data about the communications made through their services.

The who, what, when, and where will have to be stored. This will mean your internet service provider stores that you visited WIRED.co.uk to read this article, on this day, at this time and where from (i.e. a mobile device). This will be done for every website visited for a year".

People have access to all of your records for the past 12 months.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 24 May 2017, 10:56 am

I'm struggling to see the issue with that nor am I seeing how the public will have access to my bank details or anything else.

by beninho Wed 24 May 2017, 11:02 am

You clearly have a lot of faith, that all of your information will never be released sold or hacked. You are happy that someone at the food standards agency could have access to your information?

by MontysMerkin Wed 24 May 2017, 11:06 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm struggling to see the issue with that nor am I seeing how the public will have access to my bank details or anything else.

If you're struggling then here are some pretty well presented arguments for and against the snooping charter.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/snoopers-charter-investigatory-powers-bill
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-7-reasons-why-we-still-dont-need-a-snoopers-charter-in-the-uk-9973439.html
Obviously read them critically, and use your judgement to appraise the evidence in front of you.

by super_realist Wed 24 May 2017, 11:06 am

My information can be hacked or sold regardless of whether the government is monitoring it.

by Hammersmith harrier Wed 24 May 2017, 11:09 am

super_realist wrote:My information can be hacked or sold regardless of whether the government is monitoring it.

Exactly, this bill isn't changing a thing, the ill informed just latch onto it because they don't quite understand how it works and go for the simplest reasoning.

by beninho Wed 24 May 2017, 11:12 am

There is a lot less threat of your information being hacked or sold if your ISP was not hoarding your information for the past 12 months on the say so of the government.

Its not the monitoring, its the hoarding of information which is the issue, to me anyway. In all likelihood it wont be monitored, but it is still sitting there.

by Diggers Wed 24 May 2017, 11:31 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
super_realist wrote:My information can be hacked or sold regardless of whether the government is monitoring it.

Exactly, this bill isn't changing a thing, the ill informed just latch onto it because they don't quite understand how it works and go for the simplest reasoning.

So a bill that doesn't change anything? Wow, that's useful.

by super_realist Wed 24 May 2017, 12:00 pm

No, just sounds you're worrying about a problem which is already present.

by McLaren Wed 24 May 2017, 12:03 pm

Super/Hammer

I don't think anyone would have any issue with data being coughed up if the request was specific and related to an event that the police/security services should actually be involved in. But this is very different to your government collecting vague data that would have to be massively sifted to be of any use.

As people who clearly hold business efficiency in such high regard I find it odd that you also support a form of security data gathering that is practically useless, very expensive and not even remotely efficient.

Think of the full body scan example, good doctors don't like full body scans because inevitably something will turn up, usually innocuous but it wastes a lot of time and money determining that. Wouldn't you rather the security services were forced to gather data in a manner much more likely to stop criminal activity?

by Diggers Wed 24 May 2017, 12:08 pm

super_realist wrote:No, just sounds you're worrying about a problem which is already present.

So it's a problem...but I shouldn't worry about it? Ok.

by super_realist Wed 24 May 2017, 12:08 pm

Mac, what you call vague data, might actually reveal more than you think.

by McLaren Wed 24 May 2017, 12:15 pm

Super

It might, but can you imagine the time and cost of developing a model that can turn internet usage data into meaningful results about who will commit a crime? Then the time and cost of running 60 million people web usage through that model?

Would this be done daily, weekly, yearly?

by super_realist Wed 24 May 2017, 12:17 pm

Not nearly as expensive as retrospectively obtaining data following an event.

what is it they say? prevention is better than cure?

by McLaren Wed 24 May 2017, 12:25 pm

Super

You have missed the point. I was suggesting it wouldn't actually be possible so why collect all that invasive data in the first place.

by super_realist Wed 24 May 2017, 12:28 pm

First of all, it's not really invasive, secondly data storage has never been cheaper.

by Diggers Wed 24 May 2017, 12:32 pm

Not really invasive is an incredibly vague description. And once again, is purely a subjective opinion.

by super_realist Wed 24 May 2017, 12:39 pm

It's not invasive until it's analysed, and if it isn't analysed because you aren't setting off any alarms, what's the problem?

Your information is everywhere, from your passport, mobile phone, work pass, car, travel etc. Who cares?

by MontysMerkin Wed 24 May 2017, 12:43 pm

super_realist wrote:It's not invasive until it's analysed, and if it isn't analysed because you aren't setting off any alarms, what's the problem?

Your information is everywhere, from your passport, mobile phone, work pass, car, travel etc. Who cares?

LOL jobsworth attitude! Are you sure you're not on the bins soops?

by McLaren Wed 24 May 2017, 12:45 pm

Super

Fine, I am sure storing the data is cheap. But coming up with the model (one that actually finds criminals) and running the data through it wouldn't be cheap or quick.

by Diggers Wed 24 May 2017, 12:49 pm

The fact main worry is that it's small increments of change, as with everything the goal posts are slowly moved and what is deemed acceptable is judged not from the starting point, but from the last change.

by super_realist Wed 24 May 2017, 12:52 pm

McLaren wrote:Super

Fine, I am sure storing the data is cheap. But coming up with the model (one that actually finds criminals) and running the data through it wouldn't be cheap or quick.

Mac, that's just a failure of your understanding of data analytics. It's not about finding criminals, it's about finding trends in data which might lead to someone being worthy of surveillance, for example visiting certain sites, buying certain things etc.

The power of computers is phenomenal and you'd be surprised how your data is already used to determine things like how the supermarket is set up. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine how you could use this information, and other information to determine trends which might be suspicious.

by Diggers Wed 24 May 2017, 1:49 pm

Right, so on the one hand you are saying computers can do anything and use data to find anything...and at the same time you are saying don't worry about it, it's not important. Contradictory much?

by super_realist Wed 24 May 2017, 1:59 pm

No, I'm saying that your data will be of no information to anyone.

Analysts aren't trolling through all your data. Computers are looking for certain flags within your data. No one on here will be even remotely interesting to any government department.

Security isn't anymore of an issue than it is now.

by MontysMerkin Wed 24 May 2017, 2:13 pm

super_realist wrote:No, I'm saying that your data will be of no information to anyone.

Analysts aren't trolling through all your data. Computers are looking for certain flags within your data. No one on here will be even remotely interesting to any government department.

Security isn't anymore of an issue than it is now.

Well that's a relief, stand down lads Erm

by Diggers Wed 24 May 2017, 2:26 pm

super_realist wrote:No, I'm saying that your data will be of no information to anyone.

Analysts aren't trolling through all your data. Computers are looking for certain flags within your data. No one on here will be even remotely interesting to any government department.

Security isn't anymore of an issue than it is now.

Yeah I think we get it how it works Super, it's not that complicated. It's whether you believe there is a right for the data to be monitored to be potentially flagged.
Again, why should I as a law abiding citizen be monitored in that way. Your reverse view is no stronger, and in a democracy, I'd say far weaker.

by Sponsored content