From section 10 of the coalition agreement

1 view
Skip to first unread message

James Hammerton

unread,
May 12, 2010, 6:59:01 PM5/12/10
to
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm]

"The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse
the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government
and roll back state intrusion.

This will include:

# A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.

# The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the
next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.

# Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental
permission.

# The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to
provide greater transparency.

# Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.

# The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

# The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.

# The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.

# Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.

# Further regulation of CCTV.

# Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.

# A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new
criminal offences."

James

--
James Hammerton,
http://jhammerton.wordpress.org/
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/

abelard

unread,
May 12, 2010, 7:05:43 PM5/12/10
to
On Wed, 12 May 2010 23:59:01 +0100, James Hammerton
<jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm]
>
>"The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse
>the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government
>and roll back state intrusion.
>
>This will include:
>
># A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
>
># The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the
>next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
>
># Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental
>permission.
>
># The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to
>provide greater transparency.
>
># Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
>
># The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

this should include the disgraceful removal of the right to silence
by h*****

># The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.
>
># The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
>
># Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
>
># Further regulation of CCTV.
>
># Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
>
># A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new
>criminal offences."

the end of fascist 'new' labour's attack on british freedom
and citizens
and about time too

regards

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roger Dewhurst

unread,
May 12, 2010, 7:11:10 PM5/12/10
to

You cannot grumble with that.

R

JNugent

unread,
May 12, 2010, 7:19:59 PM5/12/10
to
abelard wrote:

> James Hammerton <jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm]

>> "The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse
>> the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government
>> and roll back state intrusion.

>> This will include:

>> # A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.

*Love* the bill's title. Hope they keep it for the Act.

>> # The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the
>> next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
>> # Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental
>> permission.
>> # The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to
>> provide greater transparency.

What does that mean - do we know?

There are a good many "official secrets" which should never be disclosed at
all, and some which should be disclosed only in the gravest and most prssing
of circumstances.

>> # Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
>> # The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

> this should include the disgraceful removal of the right to silence
> by h*****

There never WAS a right to silence (if "right to silence" is taken to mean a
flat-footed right to refuse to answer questions *and* a right not to have
that taken into account by a jury or bench).

The Judges' Rules caution was amended simply in order to advise a suspect
that significant failure to answer questions might well be referred to during
the conduct of a case in court.

>> # The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.

It's the *non*-violent part that needs to be emphasised.

abelard

unread,
May 12, 2010, 7:46:13 PM5/12/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:19:59 +0100, JNugent
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>
>> James Hammerton <jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm]
>
>>> "The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse
>>> the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government
>>> and roll back state intrusion.
>
>>> This will include:
>
>>> # A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
>
>*Love* the bill's title. Hope they keep it for the Act.
>
>>> # The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the
>>> next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
>>> # Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental
>>> permission.
>>> # The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to
>>> provide greater transparency.
>
>What does that mean - do we know?

well, from the beginning bliar made a pretendy freedom of info

and then moves every block in the way possible

>There are a good many "official secrets" which should never be disclosed at
>all, and some which should be disclosed only in the gravest and most prssing
>of circumstances.

ok

>>> # Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
>>> # The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
>
>> this should include the disgraceful removal of the right to silence
>> by h*****
>
>There never WAS a right to silence (if "right to silence" is taken to mean a
>flat-footed right to refuse to answer questions *and* a right not to have
>that taken into account by a jury or bench).

>The Judges' Rules caution was amended simply in order to advise a suspect
>that significant failure to answer questions might well be referred to during
>the conduct of a case in court.

i don't think that is accurate....but i'd rather leave it to lawyers

of course courts have attempted to get around the right to silence

and even with the disgraceful alteration sharp people can generally
get around it by claiming their lawyers have told them not to
answer questions

i've dealt with this in much detail in the past as i expect you recall

what i regard as a disgrace is the eager wish to read something into
nothing...a serious corruption of both logic and long time
culturally evolved law

>>> # The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.
>
>It's the *non*-violent part that needs to be emphasised.

seems to be in the words

abelard

unread,
May 12, 2010, 7:46:50 PM5/12/10
to

>You cannot grumble with that.

unless of course you're a fascist

GeorgiePorgyPuddingAndPie

unread,
May 12, 2010, 8:02:37 PM5/12/10
to
"JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
news:YJadnSPmQ78_qnbW...@pipex.net...

> abelard wrote:
>
>> James Hammerton <jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm]
>
>>> "The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse
>>> the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government
>>> and roll back state intrusion.
>
>>> This will include:
>
>>> # A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
>
> *Love* the bill's title. Hope they keep it for the Act.
>
I recall you being in favour of ID Cards.


My two cents

unread,
May 12, 2010, 8:26:05 PM5/12/10
to
On 13 May, 00:46, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:19:59 +0100, JNugent
>
>
>
>
>
> <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> >abelard wrote:
>
> >> James Hammerton <jah.use...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm]
>
> >>> "The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse
> >>> the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government
> >>> and roll back state intrusion.
>
> >>> This will include:
>
> >>> # A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
>
> >*Love* the bill's title. Hope they keep it for the Act.
>
> >>> # The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the
> >>> next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
> >>> # Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental
> >>> permission.
> >>> # The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to
> >>> provide greater transparency.
>
> >What does that mean - do we know?
>
> well, from the beginning bliar made a pretendy freedom of info
>
> and then moves every block in the way possible
>
I don't really trust my memory that far back but wasn't the freedom of
info significant progress at the time and opposed and watered down by
the Conservatives of the time. Not that it matters now. Things have
moved on. Cameron is not Thatcher or Major, whatever some of the
posters here seem to believe. I am increasingly optimistic that he
will prove a good PM.

Basil Jet

unread,
May 12, 2010, 8:29:56 PM5/12/10
to

Thanks to the people of Redditch, we don't have to worry about her any more.

My two cents

unread,
May 12, 2010, 8:35:28 PM5/12/10
to

But it won't stop me trying. ISTM that such things as records of
internet and email records, widespread CCTV, DNA databases, finger-
print databases can be invaluable tools for helping police and counter-
terrorism officers to do their jobs effectively. I am aware they are
open to abuse and safeguards need to be considered. I am aware that
public finances are tight and these things all have a price tag but I
am concerned that these things are being jettisoned more for
ideological rather than practical considerations. I'm also reserving
judgement on the review of the libel laws. I guess reviewing can't do
any harm in itself...

abelard

unread,
May 12, 2010, 9:06:31 PM5/12/10
to

i'm glad to know that...
i was very worried and i don't even know her

abelard

unread,
May 12, 2010, 9:07:47 PM5/12/10
to

you can find most of these things on the no 11 bus...

> I am aware they are
>open to abuse and safeguards need to be considered. I am aware that
>public finances are tight and these things all have a price tag but I
>am concerned that these things are being jettisoned more for
>ideological rather than practical considerations. I'm also reserving
>judgement on the review of the libel laws. I guess reviewing can't do
>any harm in itself...

--

abelard

unread,
May 12, 2010, 9:12:01 PM5/12/10
to

in terms of promise i think he could be the best leader since
churchill

first class temperament
solid education
no chip on the shoulder
civilised
highly intelligent
good instincts

the loons will hate him!

My two cents

unread,
May 12, 2010, 9:15:00 PM5/12/10
to

I remember thinking similar things about Blair in '97....

abelard

unread,
May 12, 2010, 9:32:26 PM5/12/10
to

i didn't!!
but then i knew full well that nothing a socialist says means anything

i was happy that he made pretend commitments that could be used
to pressure him every time he failed to do what he said...

regards

Paul Hyett

unread,
May 13, 2010, 3:01:47 AM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 00:19:59, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com>
wrote in uk.politics.id-cards :

>>> # The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to
>>>provide greater transparency.
>
>What does that mean - do we know?
>
>There are a good many "official secrets" which should never be
>disclosed at all, and some which should be disclosed only in the
>gravest and most prssing of circumstances.

I cannot agree with you there, Jon.

IMO, there are *no* official secrets that should be withheld for longer
than, say, 50 years - and I don't think routine gov't documents should
be concealed for more than a handful of years - say one parliament.

BTW, what sort of secrets would you suggest *never* be disclosed?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett

unread,
May 13, 2010, 2:56:26 AM5/13/10
to
On Wed, 12 May 2010 at 23:59:01, James Hammerton
<jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in uk.politics.id-cards :

Nice list, but can they really be trusted to implement it?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett

unread,
May 13, 2010, 3:10:04 AM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 03:32:26, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in
uk.politics.id-cards :

>On Wed, 12 May 2010 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT), My two cents
><mytwo...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>I remember thinking similar things about Blair in '97....
>
>i didn't!!
>but then i knew full well that nothing a socialist says means anything

I suggest to look up 'socialist' in a dictionary. Blair was many things,
but he was *not* a socialist.

ISTM that your fixation with socialism is an anachronism - we haven't
had anything resembling *real* socialism for decades!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett

unread,
May 13, 2010, 3:05:21 AM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 03:12:01, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in
uk.politics.id-cards :

>On Wed, 12 May 2010 17:26:05 -0700 (PDT), My two cents
><mytwo...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>I don't really trust my memory that far back but wasn't the freedom of
>>info significant progress at the time and opposed and watered down by
>>the Conservatives of the time. Not that it matters now. Things have
>>moved on. Cameron is not Thatcher or Major, whatever some of the
>>posters here seem to believe. I am increasingly optimistic that he
>>will prove a good PM.
>
>in terms of promise i think he could be the best leader since
> churchill
>
>first class temperament
>solid education

How much does that really mean, though - Burgess & McLean & Philby &
Blunt also had a 'solid education'...

>no chip on the shoulder
>civilised
>highly intelligent
>good instincts

But what about his deputy...?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett

unread,
May 13, 2010, 3:13:59 AM5/13/10
to
On Wed, 12 May 2010 at 17:35:28, My two cents <mytwo...@live.co.uk>
wrote in uk.politics.id-cards :

>>
>> You cannot grumble with that.
>
>But it won't stop me trying. ISTM that such things as records of
>internet and email records, widespread CCTV, DNA databases, finger-
>print databases can be invaluable tools for helping police and counter-
>terrorism officers to do their jobs effectively.

Getting off their asses and actually doing their *job* would also work.

Chief constables need to be ordered to lay off trivial offences, not to
mention victims of crime who lose their rag under extreme provocation.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

JNugent

unread,
May 13, 2010, 6:35:27 AM5/13/10
to
GeorgiePorgyPuddingAndPie wrote:

> "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:

>> abelard wrote:
>>> James Hammerton <jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>>> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm]

>>>> "The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse
>>>> the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government
>>>> and roll back state intrusion.
>>>> This will include:
>>>> # A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.

>> *Love* the bill's title. Hope they keep it for the Act.

> I recall you being in favour of ID Cards.

I always was, long before the recent proposals.

I still am, in principle, and don't mind admitting it. Of course, the Great
Reform Bill is about rather more than ID cards.

JNugent

unread,
May 13, 2010, 6:36:58 AM5/13/10
to

Opposition to a Bill can occur for various reasons. It can even be an
opposition to the provisions of a Bill because it doesn't go far enough.

You'd need to show what the opposition was, what form it took and how it was
expressed before you could draw any useful conclusions.

JNugent

unread,
May 13, 2010, 6:40:58 AM5/13/10
to

Police files?

Intelligence files?

Anything concerning the individual citizen in his relationship with the state
(particularly, for instance, medical files (eg, details of the illnesses -
including, for example, incontinence - of any sweet old lady who happens to
have publically opposed the Labour Party)?

Weapons development?

All sorts of things. That list is not exhaustive, and it is dangerous to take
the view that one has a right to be told just anything.


AlanG

unread,
May 13, 2010, 8:20:58 AM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 00:19:59 +0100, JNugent
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>
>> James Hammerton <jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm]
>
>>> "The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse
>>> the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government
>>> and roll back state intrusion.
>
>>> This will include:
>
>>> # A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
>
>*Love* the bill's title. Hope they keep it for the Act.
>
>>> # The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the
>>> next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
>>> # Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental
>>> permission.
>>> # The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to
>>> provide greater transparency.
>
>What does that mean - do we know?

No.


>
>There are a good many "official secrets" which should never be disclosed at
>all, and some which should be disclosed only in the gravest and most prssing
>of circumstances.

What secrets are those?
Oh we can't tell you because they are secret


>
>>> # Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
>>> # The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
>
>> this should include the disgraceful removal of the right to silence
>> by h*****
>
>There never WAS a right to silence (if "right to silence" is taken to mean a
>flat-footed right to refuse to answer questions *and* a right not to have
>that taken into account by a jury or bench).

Completely wrong.
In English law the onus was on the prosecution to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt. That was the only thing required.

>
>The Judges' Rules caution was amended simply in order to advise a suspect
>that significant failure to answer questions might well be referred to during
>the conduct of a case in court.

There is an inference that failure to answer questions could be held
against the accused.
That had never been the case before.

>
>>> # The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.
>
>It's the *non*-violent part that needs to be emphasised.

It is the restoration of the right of peaceful public assembly that is
needed. A right we had for centuries until the infamous 1986 public
order act

AlanG

unread,
May 13, 2010, 8:24:02 AM5/13/10
to

So did a lot of people.
With me it lasted about 18 months since I was prepared to give him the
benefit of the doubt.

AlanG

unread,
May 13, 2010, 8:25:11 AM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 03:32:26 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:

>>> first class temperament
>>> solid education
>>> no chip on the shoulder
>>> civilised
>>> highly intelligent
>>> good instincts
>>>
>>> the loons will hate him!
>>
>>I remember thinking similar things about Blair in '97....
>
>i didn't!!
>but then i knew full well that nothing a socialist says means anything

Blair was a tory.
A Thatcherite one too

AlanG

unread,
May 13, 2010, 8:26:29 AM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 01:46:50 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:

Or racist neo nazi who would like to see everyone forced to carry ID
cards.

abelard

unread,
May 13, 2010, 8:31:12 AM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:10:04 +0100, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 03:32:26, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in
>uk.politics.id-cards :
>
>>On Wed, 12 May 2010 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT), My two cents
>><mytwo...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>I remember thinking similar things about Blair in '97....
>>
>>i didn't!!
>>but then i knew full well that nothing a socialist says means anything
>
>I suggest to look up 'socialist' in a dictionary. Blair was many things,
>but he was *not* a socialist.

yes, i know...neither was hitler or stalin

they just weren't *real* socialists....

>ISTM that your fixation with socialism is an anachronism - we haven't
>had anything resembling *real* socialism for decades!

--

abelard

unread,
May 13, 2010, 8:40:22 AM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:05:21 +0100, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 03:12:01, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in

>uk.politics.id-cards :
>
>>On Wed, 12 May 2010 17:26:05 -0700 (PDT), My two cents
>><mytwo...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>I don't really trust my memory that far back but wasn't the freedom of
>>>info significant progress at the time and opposed and watered down by
>>>the Conservatives of the time. Not that it matters now. Things have
>>>moved on. Cameron is not Thatcher or Major, whatever some of the
>>>posters here seem to believe. I am increasingly optimistic that he
>>>will prove a good PM.
>>
>>in terms of promise i think he could be the best leader since
>> churchill
>>
>>first class temperament
>>solid education
>
>How much does that really mean, though - Burgess & McLean & Philby &
>Blunt also had a 'solid education'...

on its own...nothing
but that wasn't the limits of my comments

i am very aware that even some highly intelligent
people can be very negative actors

hitler was an obvious example
but of course he was very poorly educated

>>no chip on the shoulder
>>civilised
>>highly intelligent
>>good instincts
>
>But what about his deputy...?

i'd rather not make precipitous comments on that

however, as i see more of the agreement reached...if those
agreements are followed though..

i would be prepared to regard the party as a legitimate and
respectable political party, even if too squidgy for my taste

regards

abelard

unread,
May 13, 2010, 8:44:16 AM5/13/10
to

to add to nugent's comments
the campaign over id cards goes much further that the
id cards alone....they go to the linked data files the
fascist government was slavering for

perhaps james h can supply you with a link

William Black

unread,
May 13, 2010, 8:57:31 AM5/13/10
to
On 13/05/10 08:01, Paul Hyett wrote:

> IMO, there are *no* official secrets that should be withheld for longer
> than, say, 50 years - and I don't think routine gov't documents should
> be concealed for more than a handful of years - say one parliament.
>
> BTW, what sort of secrets would you suggest *never* be disclosed?

The VENONA documents were secret for very good reasons for a very long time.

Files relating to the employment of foreign secret agents in WWII who
are still alive are still secret.

Would you like them to be released?


--
William Black

These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious
Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes
their passage does so at his own peril.

abelard

unread,
May 13, 2010, 9:00:40 AM5/13/10
to

it's ok alan....i do know how you rewrite each one of your serial
failures

abelard

unread,
May 13, 2010, 9:01:24 AM5/13/10
to

just so...typical socialist/fascist

My two cents

unread,
May 13, 2010, 9:28:03 AM5/13/10
to
On 13 May, 08:13, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 at 17:35:28, My two cents <mytwoce...@live.co.uk>

> wrote in uk.politics.id-cards :
>
>
>
> >> You cannot grumble with that.
>
> >But it won't stop me trying. ISTM that such things as records of
> >internet and email records, widespread CCTV, DNA databases, finger-
> >print databases can be invaluable tools for helping police and counter-
> >terrorism officers to do their jobs effectively.
>
> Getting off their asses and actually doing their *job* would also work.

It's not an either/or scenario.


>
> Chief constables need to be ordered to lay off trivial offences,

What sort of offences did you have in mind?

> not to
> mention victims of crime who lose their rag under extreme provocation.

Are you thinking of Tony Martin here?

> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

AlanG

unread,
May 13, 2010, 9:52:42 AM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:10:04 +0100, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 03:32:26, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in

I beg to differ.
IMO they are all socialists to some degree even Abelard no matter how
much he screams and shouts.

Taxation is socialism.
It's where the state spends your wealth ostensibly for the benefit of
society

Basil Jet

unread,
May 13, 2010, 9:56:35 AM5/13/10
to
On 13/05/2010 14:52, AlanG wrote:
>
> I beg to differ.
> IMO they are all socialists to some degree even Abelard no matter how
> much he screams and shouts.
>
> Taxation is socialism.
> It's where the state spends your wealth ostensibly for the benefit of
> society

Rubbish. The government taxing people to spend on road building is
hardly socialism.

William Black

unread,
May 13, 2010, 10:05:33 AM5/13/10
to
On 13/05/10 14:52, AlanG wrote:

> Taxation is socialism.

Libertarian twaddle.

Taxation is the fundamental foundation by which the dominant 'city
builder' culture has ruled this planet for five thousand years.

Without taxation we would have no cities.

With no cities we would be unable to maintain anything but subsistence
agriculturalists and a few warrior aristocrats employed to protect them.

AlanG

unread,
May 13, 2010, 11:49:04 AM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:31:12 +0200, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:10:04 +0100, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 03:32:26, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in
>>uk.politics.id-cards :
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 May 2010 18:15:00 -0700 (PDT), My two cents
>>><mytwo...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I remember thinking similar things about Blair in '97....
>>>
>>>i didn't!!
>>>but then i knew full well that nothing a socialist says means anything
>>
>>I suggest to look up 'socialist' in a dictionary. Blair was many things,
>>but he was *not* a socialist.
>
>yes, i know...neither was hitler or stalin
>
>they just weren't *real* socialists....

Yes they were.
Just not the same as you

AlanG

unread,
May 13, 2010, 11:49:44 AM5/13/10
to

Yes it is.

AlanG

unread,
May 13, 2010, 11:51:26 AM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:05:33 +0100, William Black
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On 13/05/10 14:52, AlanG wrote:
>
>> Taxation is socialism.
>
>Libertarian twaddle.
>
>Taxation is the fundamental foundation by which the dominant 'city
>builder' culture has ruled this planet for five thousand years.
>
>Without taxation we would have no cities.

We would have no society.
Socialism is not inherently evil.
Just the extreme application of it


>
>With no cities we would be unable to maintain anything but subsistence
>agriculturalists and a few warrior aristocrats employed to protect them.

That would still be socialism

Harry Merrick

unread,
May 13, 2010, 12:31:07 PM5/13/10
to
William Black wrote:
> On 13/05/10 14:52, AlanG wrote:
>
>> Taxation is socialism.
>
> Libertarian twaddle.
>
> Taxation is the fundamental foundation by which the dominant 'city
> builder' culture has ruled this planet for five thousand years.
>
> Without taxation we would have no cities.
>
> With no cities we would be unable to maintain anything but subsistence
> agriculturalists and a few warrior aristocrats employed to protect
> them.

Have to say, I reckon that that might be quite good in fact!

--
Harry Merrick.

GeorgiePorgyPuddingAndPie

unread,
May 13, 2010, 12:59:07 PM5/13/10
to
"JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
news:vv-dnfiff6lzSHbW...@pipex.net...

>
>> I recall you being in favour of ID Cards.
>
> I always was, long before the recent proposals.
>
> I still am, in principle, and don't mind admitting it. Of course, the
> Great Reform Bill is about rather more than ID cards.
>
Out of curiosity, why? You are a Tory, aren't you? I thought that Tories
were opposed to bureaucratic red tape and were opposed to the state
dictating to the individual. Why should the individual be forced to
purchase from the state what amounts to a licence to exist?


GeorgiePorgyPuddingAndPie

unread,
May 13, 2010, 1:02:36 PM5/13/10
to
"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:2s7ou55bvd55shslr...@4ax.com...
Then just about every government in every country of the world has been
socialist!


Paul Hyett

unread,
May 13, 2010, 12:50:41 PM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 13:57:31, William Black
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in uk.politics.id-cards :

>On 13/05/10 08:01, Paul Hyett wrote:
>
>> IMO, there are *no* official secrets that should be withheld for longer
>> than, say, 50 years - and I don't think routine gov't documents should
>> be concealed for more than a handful of years - say one parliament.
>>
>> BTW, what sort of secrets would you suggest *never* be disclosed?
>
>The VENONA documents were secret for very good reasons for a very long time.
>
>Files relating to the employment of foreign secret agents in WWII who
>are still alive are still secret.
>
>Would you like them to be released?

Why not - both they, and their former enemies, will be too old now for
reprisals to have any meaning.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett

unread,
May 13, 2010, 12:54:27 PM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 06:28:03, My two cents <mytwo...@live.co.uk>
wrote in uk.politics.id-cards :
>>

>> Chief constables need to be ordered to lay off trivial offences,
>
>What sort of offences did you have in mind?

Well, use of speed cameras simply as a means to generate revenue, for a
start.


>
>> not to
>> mention victims of crime who lose their rag under extreme provocation.
>
>Are you thinking of Tony Martin here?

Actually I wasn't - but now you come to mention it...

I was thinking more along the lines of people terrorised by gangs of
yobs, who finally snap & detain/clout some of them.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett

unread,
May 13, 2010, 12:43:31 PM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 14:31:12, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in
uk.politics.id-cards :
>>>>

>>>>I remember thinking similar things about Blair in '97....
>>>
>>>i didn't!!
>>>but then i knew full well that nothing a socialist says means anything
>>
>>I suggest to look up 'socialist' in a dictionary. Blair was many things,
>>but he was *not* a socialist.
>
>yes, i know...neither was hitler or stalin
>
>they just weren't *real* socialists....

Is that the best you can come up with? I expected a more effective
counter from you.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett

unread,
May 13, 2010, 12:48:18 PM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 11:40:58, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com>
wrote in uk.politics.id-cards :
>>>

>>> There are a good many "official secrets" which should never be
>>>disclosed at all, and some which should be disclosed only in the
>>>gravest and most prssing of circumstances.
>> I cannot agree with you there, Jon.
>> IMO, there are *no* official secrets that should be withheld for
>>longer than, say, 50 years - and I don't think routine gov't
>>documents should be concealed for more than a handful of years - say
>>one parliament.
>> BTW, what sort of secrets would you suggest *never* be disclosed?
>
>Police files?
>
>Intelligence files?

After 50 years, I'd have no problem with that.


>
>Anything concerning the individual citizen in his relationship with the
>state (particularly, for instance, medical files (eg, details of the
>illnesses - including, for example, incontinence - of any sweet old
>lady who happens to have publically opposed the Labour Party)?

Sorry - I thought we were talking about *official secrets*, i.e. gov't
stuff, not personal private data?
>
>Weapons development?

After 50 years 'state-of-the-art' becomes 'obsolete crap'.


>
>All sorts of things. That list is not exhaustive, and it is dangerous
>to take the view that one has a right to be told just anything.
>

That's another thing we disagree on, then.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

JNugent

unread,
May 13, 2010, 1:10:15 PM5/13/10
to
GeorgiePorgyPuddingAndPie wrote:

> "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:

>>> I recall you being in favour of ID Cards.

>> I always was, long before the recent proposals.
>> I still am, in principle, and don't mind admitting it. Of course, the
>> Great Reform Bill is about rather more than ID cards.

> Out of curiosity, why? You are a Tory, aren't you? I thought that Tories
> were opposed to bureaucratic red tape and were opposed to the state
> dictating to the individual. Why should the individual be forced to
> purchase from the state what amounts to a licence to exist?

A hundred years ago, that's what I would have thought and said.

In the era of jet travel and massive illegal immigration, and of large-scale
social-security fraud and identity-theft, it's different.

Mind you, I wouldn't be in favour of enforced purchase.

JNugent

unread,
May 13, 2010, 1:13:10 PM5/13/10
to
Paul Hyett wrote:

> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:

>>>> There are a good many "official secrets" which should never be
>>>> disclosed at all, and some which should be disclosed only in the
>>>> gravest and most prssing of circumstances.

>>> I cannot agree with you there, Jon.
>>> IMO, there are *no* official secrets that should be withheld for
>>> longer than, say, 50 years - and I don't think routine gov't
>>> documents should be concealed for more than a handful of years -
>>> say one parliament.
>>> BTW, what sort of secrets would you suggest *never* be disclosed?

>> Police files?
>> Intelligence files?

> After 50 years, I'd have no problem with that.

You might not. The needs for security might mean there was one.

>> Anything concerning the individual citizen in his relationship with
>> the state (particularly, for instance, medical files (eg, details of
>> the illnesses - including, for example, incontinence - of any sweet
>> old lady who happens to have publically opposed the Labour Party)?

> Sorry - I thought we were talking about *official secrets*, i.e. gov't
> stuff, not personal private data?

It is ALL "official secrets". Repeal the Act and it's all out in the open.

>> Weapons development?

> After 50 years 'state-of-the-art' becomes 'obsolete crap'.

That might your view - but it's a glib answer.

You don't really want the Aldermaston archives opened up for any old
terrorist with a grudge, do you?

>> All sorts of things. That list is not exhaustive, and it is dangerous
>> to take the view that one has a right to be told just anything.

> That's another thing we disagree on, then.

Why do you want to know so much about other people?

abelard

unread,
May 13, 2010, 1:19:07 PM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 17:43:31 +0100, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 14:31:12, abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in

no you didn't
you merely hoped to suggest that the fascist bliar was not a socialist

an obvious nonsense

abelard

unread,
May 13, 2010, 1:25:03 PM5/13/10
to

indeed....he's into socialist newspeak

it's a standard socialist practice designed to remove from the
language any words used to describe their cult accurately

newspeak is highly related to another socialist idiocy under
the label of...'political correctness'

if you have no words to describe their crimes...then the crimes
disappear
it is a form of valuing theory above and contrary to realities

GeorgiePorgyPuddingAndPie

unread,
May 13, 2010, 1:37:37 PM5/13/10
to
"JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
news:vcydnRirGpXrr3HW...@pipex.net...

> GeorgiePorgyPuddingAndPie wrote:
>
>> Out of curiosity, why? You are a Tory, aren't you? I thought that
>> Tories were opposed to bureaucratic red tape and were opposed to the
>> state dictating to the individual. Why should the individual be forced
>> to purchase from the state what amounts to a licence to exist?
>
> A hundred years ago, that's what I would have thought and said.
>
> In the era of jet travel and massive illegal immigration, and of
> large-scale social-security fraud and identity-theft, it's different.
>
How will ID Cards help with illegal immigration? Spain has 2 million
illegal immigrants and very harsh identity control. You'd have to give the
police the right to arrest and fine anyone who couldn't produce an ID Card
and set up randon checkpoints. Knowing the mentality of the average
policeman, the police cells would be bursting with forgetful pensioners.
Like any other public sector employee, the police are at bottom pretty idle
and giving them another way not to work for a living seems counter
productive to me. People would rebel and violently.

Only a very small proportion of social security fraud is caused by people
misrepresenting their identity. A mere �50m a year. Even the simplest ID
Card system is going to cost vastly more to run.

> Mind you, I wouldn't be in favour of enforced purchase.
>

Then public spending has just gone up substantially.


AlanG

unread,
May 13, 2010, 2:49:49 PM5/13/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:02:36 +0100, "GeorgiePorgyPuddingAndPie"
<geo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

That's correct.

William Black

unread,
May 13, 2010, 4:15:29 PM5/13/10
to

We tried it for some time.

Constant wars, starvation and plagues along with kings and their
over-mighty subjects killing each other in ever increasing numbers and
every so often the peasants revolted.

In the end they had a climactic war where everyone who could afford a
suit of armour got involved and more or less wiped themselves out and we
got stuck with a rather nasty police state called 'The Tudors' for about
a hundred years...

William Black

unread,
May 13, 2010, 4:21:12 PM5/13/10
to
On 13/05/10 17:48, Paul Hyett wrote:

> After 50 years 'state-of-the-art' becomes 'obsolete crap'.

That'll be why William F Friedman's books 'Military Cryptanalytics' and
'Military Cryptanalysis' are both still classified and in daily
operational use well over 50 years after they were written...

William Black

unread,
May 13, 2010, 4:22:49 PM5/13/10
to

You mean you'd like an elderly gentleman (or lady) now in retirement in
Russia or Germany who happened to be on our side in WWII or the Cold War
to be in fear of their lives because you want some papers released?

Paul Hyett

unread,
May 14, 2010, 2:58:53 AM5/14/10
to
On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 18:13:10, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com>
wrote in uk.politics.id-cards :

>>>> BTW, what sort of secrets would you suggest *never* be disclosed?


>
>>> Police files?
>>> Intelligence files?
>
>> After 50 years, I'd have no problem with that.
>
>You might not. The needs for security might mean there was one.

I'd like to hear a scenario where that'd actually happen...


>
>> Sorry - I thought we were talking about *official secrets*, i.e.
>>gov't stuff, not personal private data?
>
>It is ALL "official secrets".

I disagree again - there's a lot of difference between what the gov't
does - which we after all pay for, and what private citizens do.

>Repeal the Act and it's all out in the open.

I wasn't proposing repealing the Data Protection Act too.


>
>>> Weapons development?
>
>> After 50 years 'state-of-the-art' becomes 'obsolete crap'.
>
>That might your view - but it's a glib answer.
>
>You don't really want the Aldermaston archives opened up for any old
>terrorist with a grudge, do you?

I wasn't proposing handing over nuclear launch codes, if that's what
you're alluding to? Besides, those would *hardly* go unchanged for 50
years!


>
>>> All sorts of things. That list is not exhaustive, and it is
>>>dangerous to take the view that one has a right to be told just
>>>anything.
>
>> That's another thing we disagree on, then.
>
>Why do you want to know so much about other people?

I don't - which is why I was trying to draw a clear distinction between
gov't data, and personal information.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

JNugent

unread,
May 14, 2010, 6:29:57 AM5/14/10
to

It's all government data.

No Act forces private citizens or private companies to reveal any data
(except in connection with statutory duties like taxation, etc).

William Black

unread,
May 14, 2010, 9:12:28 AM5/14/10
to
On 14/05/10 07:58, Paul Hyett wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 18:13:10, JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com>
> wrote in uk.politics.id-cards :
>
>>>>> BTW, what sort of secrets would you suggest *never* be disclosed?
>>
>>>> Police files?
>>>> Intelligence files?
>>
>>> After 50 years, I'd have no problem with that.
>>
>> You might not. The needs for security might mean there was one.
>
> I'd like to hear a scenario where that'd actually happen...

The encryption codes for nuclear release are from about 1959.

Trust No One�

unread,
May 14, 2010, 4:56:04 PM5/14/10
to

"Paul Hyett" <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:mNtv2lLa...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
> Nice list, but can they really be trusted to implement it?

My thoughts exactly.

The list just sounds too good to be true.

I dare not hope.

--
Peter <X-Files fan>


Owen Rees

unread,
May 14, 2010, 5:37:54 PM5/14/10
to
On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:29:57 +0100, JNugent
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in
<bcWdnVBu5LK5u3DW...@pipex.net>:

>No Act forces private citizens or private companies to reveal any data
>(except in connection with statutory duties like taxation, etc).

See the sample letter at:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/data_protection/your_rights/how_to_access_information.aspx

or see http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resources/glossary.aspx#s

====
Subject access request (Data Protection Act)

Under the Data Protection Act, individuals can ask to see the
information about themselves that is held on computer and in some paper
records. If an individual wants to exercise this subject access right,
they should write to the person or organisation that they believe is
processing the data.

A subject access request must be made in writing and must be
accompanied by the appropriate fee. In most cases, the maximum fee will
be �10, but this can vary, particularly if the information requested is
for health or educational records. If a subject access request is made
to a credit reference agency for financial information (ie a credit
file), then the fee is �2, and the information must be provided within
seven working days. A request must include enough information to enable
the person or organisation to whom the subject is writing to satisfy
itself as to their identity and to find the information.

A reply must be received within 40 days as long as the necessary fee
has been paid. A data controller should act promptly in requesting the
fee or any further information necessary to fulfil the request. If a
data controller is not processing personal information of which this
individual is the data subject, the data controller must reply saying
so.
====

--
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

JNugent

unread,
May 14, 2010, 7:43:40 PM5/14/10
to

<rolls eyes>

Quite right.

I should have spelled out that no Act forces private citizens or private
companies to reveal any data *about themselves* (except in connection with

statutory duties like taxation, etc).

But I assumed that was a given.

I'd forgotten about you (if I ever knew about you).

Well done.

My two cents

unread,
May 15, 2010, 10:24:11 AM5/15/10
to
On 13 May, 17:54, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 at 06:28:03, My two cents <mytwoce...@live.co.uk>

> wrote in uk.politics.id-cards :
>
> >> Chief constables need to be ordered to lay off trivial offences,
>
> >What sort of offences did you have in mind?
>
> Well, use of speed cameras simply as a means to generate revenue, for a
> start.

Surely that doesn't cost police enough time to seriously compromise
their ability to fight real crime. Besides it generates revenue for
the treasury that can be invested back into the police force.

> >> not to
> >> mention victims of crime who lose their rag under extreme provocation.
>
> >Are you thinking of Tony Martin here?
>
> Actually I wasn't - but now you come to mention it...

OK. Do you think one should have the right to shoot burglars in the
back as they are running away?


>
> I was thinking more along the lines of people terrorised by gangs of
> yobs, who finally snap & detain/clout some of them.

This I do agree with. Would you actually be arrested for doing
something like that or is it just a media generated myth?
> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett

unread,
May 15, 2010, 12:40:04 PM5/15/10