The move comes as one of Britain's leading online commentators has been questioned by police following a complaint by the main governing party.
The new rules would allow a suspect to be detained indefinitely, without being charged or put on trial.
But officials insist the law is not intended to strangle internet freedom.'
That story was on the Beeb website and in keeping with our policy of minor subversion I have only changed a couple of words.
It will happen here too. Anyone who believes that the Government's attempt to impose 56 days on us is aimed at 'Terrorists' is missing the point.
Our favourite ex-Stalinist Mr Reid (he of Colin and Justin fame) has already talked of the need to 'target' agitators now that mere terrorists are under control.
That combined with the mass of spin which talks of the dangers of unrestricted access to the Net, anonymity and non-politeness leads me to believe that it is only a matter of time before we see ASBOs for bloggers and worse.
And I am not the only one.
'Famous for 15 megapixels' has an interesting take on things...........
"Let's fuck shit up!"but when you've got the dollar falling through the floor, carrier groups sailing in all sorts of provocative places, homeland security chiefs with 'gut feelings' about imminent terrorist attacks and UK police chiefs talking about mass internment, rest assured it probably won't be a long wait'
Me?
I think Bush and Blair are war criminals who should be languishing in custom built cells in the Hague.
There, said it now.
Anyone agree?
If you do, say so.
57 comments:
Moron, stop drinking too much.
Correct, your blog is well past its sell by date.
Not surprising, as you appear to be incapable of reading a post before commenting.
Very welcome here to learn the error of your ways, but do wake up and follow the links in the article first and then try and get your brain into gear.
If you don't think that Bush and Blair are war criminals by all means say so.
Thank you so much for your kind reply.
You said:
"That story was on the Beeb website and in keeping with our policy of minor subversion I have only changed a couple of words.
It will happen here too. Anyone who believes that the Government's attempt to impose 56 days on us is aimed at 'Terrorists' is missing the point."
Oh, I get it - it's a joke!
[Yes, Your Honour, a joke.]
You've only changed a few WORDS!
Just as well there isn't yet a clamp-down on the internet. It'd hardly be a defence to argue that "the few words" made no material difference, since they were the nub of the issue - the country and the individual involved.
The whole tenor of your post is that THIS government has actually done this, because YOU believe they WILL.
I'm afraid I'm getting to the stage where I believe perhaps they should.
Oh and btw, just as no-one was a criminal in the 'honours' nonsense, no-one is a 'war criminal' until they are convicted of so being.
Innocent until proven guilty?
Better brains than ours have come to many differing conclusions as to whether such a case could stand up in any court.
I predict that neither Bush nor Blair will EVER be found guilty of being a war criminal.
Personally I think it is mad beyond belief to compare them with many others we can think of, most of whom have never been tried.
People who murder the truth, by painting opinion as fact, and by playing with language for headline impact, are more dangerous to democracy than a mere political leader.
I for one DO think they are war criminals.
I agree with laviBlue and the Merk about this "war criminal" status although status is too kind a word.
As for the rest I am missing something here so will wait before saying more.
But, of course, the internet will be more and more under eyes and spies and that is why the "Great Outdoors" was a good thing.
'People who murder the truth, by painting opinion as fact, and by playing with language for headline impact, are more dangerous to democracy than a mere political leader.'
********
I hope anonymous is not referring to me.
It used to be letters by the post that were "somehow" looked into and now it is, of couse the internet.
Whoever fails to know this?
If anybody is interested they can research many different examples and, I am sorry to say, the examples from Nokia Land Finland are not nice reading.
The fact is that those eyes work under a different set of rules and there is nothing you or I can do about it. Unless we shut up.
The British government has always been a "clunking fist" and it is not alone in that status.
There is enough quality research to substantiate this kind of claim but I guess it is always good to go back to basics. Sometimes.
'The whole tenor of your post is....'
Yawn, yawn.
We have seen the steady erosion of liberty under the last few governments.
That it happens without the vast majority caring doesn't mean the vast majority should not be reminded that they are sleepwalking into dictatorship.
The first comment was removed because it was an 'anonymous' posting with a backlink.
Not allowed today, at least not here, and especially not on a first date.
Well said, Zola.
Thanks for the thoughts Lavender.
Well done, Merkin, I see you have given birth to a flaming troll.
Is that your first?.
I was so proud when I got mine I emailed everyone to come and have a look.
Awww! I'm removed. Couldn't you just have edited out my url?
Or didn't you want to give space for the points I was making?
Hhmm...mm
To Ally,
Na! I was referring to your enemies - the press & the little bloggers. Thought it was clear.
To zola,
"As for the rest I am missing something here so will wait before saying more."
You're missing my opening remarks -the first reply to the whole thing. Seems a bit odd to have had it removed. It DID appear for a bit but because I had my url in there, (Merkin says), he has NOW removed it.
[Imho, It's really because the url went to my blog - in support of the hated former leader ... Keep Tony Blair for PM.]
If its url had been letshangblairthebast*** it would probably still be here ;0)
One man's censorship is another man's prejudice, eh?
No troll.
I suppose Merkin's passing over the ten ton weight to me!
The point was that I think it is dangerously misleading to make it look like a factual report by changing the two main elements of the story - the name of the country and the individual.
It's tabloid blogging. And I HATE the tabloids. I stopped reading like a thirteen year old when I was about ... nine.
Well,now anonymous
Should you use a real name and come out,as it were ,people might really listen to you.
in the mean time ,in between time, speak OUT and put your name to it.
OK ?
I am the real Anonymous.
The Blair-friend is right, and those who think it appropiate to make up stuff look pretty demented.
That is how democracy goes, not with totalitarianism or Dr Reid, (who wisely moved on when Gordon Brown took over) but with supposedly freedom loving wallies habitually falsifying the facts, deliberately sometimes, just cos they do on other occasions.
Is the music any better than the humour?
Fraid it is a waste of time here . . . and the site owner hasn't denied that he is a piss artist.
Anon.well now....I'm an artist -piss and commercial.....and I have yet to read anything important from you.
Oh ! please do try again...........
Hello lav,
Is that YOUR real name, btw?
No point coming out now! Anyway, I like to keep them all clueless - since that's how many of them started out.
But I will give you a little hint on who I'm not. Not TB, CB, AC or PM (Mandy); nor Aaronovitch or any other sensible Blairite journo.
Just as this site owner says on his blog - an ordinary person.
I have a small problem, it seems. I don't accept all the junk that is thrown at me through the press about the accepted "corruption" of ALL politicians, especially those on the opposite side from me politically - wherever THAT is.
I belong to no party. I believe in democracy, thus I support the government even though I didn't vote for them.
I also think Tony Blair is a great politician and visionary, even though I didn't vote for him!
I think we live in one of the best countries in the world, but which has, perhaps, taken political correctness a bit TOO far. Our freedom is not in jeopardy, though sometimes I think it deserves to be. It's all relative.
Right that's me. Now what about you lav?
Not contaminating the water in those bowser things are you?
Back for a while.
The original article was quite clear in its scope and intent.
Simple.
Hang on here and say what you think.
All welcome.
The music is the music and hits the spot, or not, for whoever, or not.
Thanx lavender for putting it better than me - Zola too.
Any anony mice must expect to get judged by a relatively harsh standard and, when we are not-too-sure about the provenance, will be 'cut off without a penny'.
Other than that, fire away.
No mention of the CENSORSHIP of Blair-friend's attempt to leave http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/ here?
Why not Try to tell it as it is?
Hi, LurkinMerkin.
Beware of those who post while purporting to be someone else.
Set your options to block anyone who is not able to be identified.
Otherwise you will be besieged by those who seek to stifle debate.
Your choice, your monkey.
Apart from that, yes Bliar should be tried.
Good article.
And you'll be making up the evidence I expect?
Or would a bit of Hutton do, and a bit more real truth from other sources with no axe to grind?
BTW if you think I am signing up to Google to satisfy your desire to know my real name LOL!
Well Anonimouse : All I can say from myself is that I have no axe to grind as that "axe" is always in the hands of a muscular power-elite.
All the likes of me are left with is. at best chips on the shoulder. At worst a fucking great log to carry around.
BTW : Have not laughed so much since Blair made theatre at the Diana funeral festival.
You'll let me, no doubt, put it in a different way:
Bush and Blair and their allies in this absurd war, allegedly to fight terrorism later found out to be a "blood for oil" war which has caused hundreds of thousands of dead,wounded,and refugees should be tried as war criminals and if convicted sent to prison for a large slice of their lives.
That way we, the rest of us, could see a little justice being done.
We supposedly live in a democracy, and as such are alowed our views on whatever.
So everyone's point should be valued, but if some of those views are rammed down our throats because someone beleives they are more right then anyone else that is bully boy tactics.
we don't need to be told what to think anymore we need to find out for ourselves. That system of doing things blindly killed all those men in WWI.
I want to have my views challanged else how will I learn,so bring it on Merkin.Open the debate, let us not be brainwashed anymore by people telling us just because 'they know best'
And trading insults just because 'I know more than you do' anonymous is childish.
I am not a political animal, but what is happening today even makes me want to stand up and say NO MORE.
I want to be responsible , I am responsible and I want a society that continues to allow me the freedom to be that in my own way. And not one that tells me how to be
px
Fact remains that Blair-friend's post was removed by someone complaining about the imginary, (a lie) threat of HMG putting him in jail because he blogs against them.
With such a defender of our liberties my initial comment remains apposite.
Well said,Jose !
Anonny is quiet today............
I know you are not likely to believe this but there ARE actually two of us anonymice on here.
To the person who said we had to make up our own minds - absolutely.
Trouble is - we have had all our information from the media - where else are we going to get it ? - and they seem to me to have an agenda, or perhaps several agendas.
So when they tell us that it is all LIES - I am tempted to distrust them since official inquiries have NOT shown that there were LIES.
Of course if you start from the premise of distrusting ANY authority - which is the starting point of many bloggers - the anti establishment lot - then it's easy to believe the opinions of the agenda'd press.
Ane even if they ARE all bastards I'd rather trust MY elected bastards on the whole.
Hei,Nonny-no
Why oh why did you elect 'bastards '?
To allow frivolity in for a moment, I've nominated you for an award. Come over to see.
px
Jeeeeeez..............ffs
The first post was removed because it contained backlinks to some site or other.
Thatz all.
That we are very clearly rushing headlong into a police state is not in doubt.
From The Independent.
'If you're a member of the National Trust, the RSPB [Royal Society for the Protection of Birds], the Woodland Trust or Friends of the Earth, then you could be banned from Britain's biggest airport. And the Piccadilly line. And parts of Paddington station. And sections of the M4. All because the authorities want to halt a protest against climate change...
In legal documents seen by The Independent, the British Airports Authority has begun moves that would allow police to arrest members of 15 environmental groups to prevent them taking part in demonstrations against airport expansion'.
Protest is going to outlawed and that is all there is to it.
Jeeez=o
I am a member of the NT,RSPB..........et al..........ffs..there really is no end to this, is there..or..is there.......?
Hmmmm,we will have to wait and see.
I would rather do 'life' than do time as a
'yes-man'
Good on you, Lavender.
As the other anonymous writer pointed out earlier (but which of you actually reads anything which doesn't suit you?) it was quite possible to remove the link and leave the post.
In keeping with the policy of minor subversion I shall assume you are all relos of Emva Hodge.
Guess Norman Wisdom's oeuvre can be put to music and that your audiences like that sort of thing?
Clever if you could do it, but . . . .
The only censorship I know of is on this Blob (whhops! Blog) and on the Guardian's CiF where they often remove references to Islamo-fascism.
To the other guy with the sensible name - Who is Emva Hodge?
G'night children. Sweet dreams.
What my politically aware children used to call Enver Hoxha - I thought everyone knew that, just a little corruption of the truth to follow the party line re misleading people.
There is no 'party line' because there is no party, dear Enver.
My line is to speak out about the erosion of civil liberties.
That members of the RSPB or National Trust could end up with 56 days internment as 'terrorists' for travelling to a public meeting is ludicrous.
That is the nature of the clunking fist - particularly as we get closer to the new Iranian adventure.
Tell you what Mucka, we'll both accompany the RSPB to jail, how's that?
The real truth is that the Brown Government is doing a great job of movinng the battle on Islamo-fascism and any other terrorists on nicely.
Mark Carlisle was just on TV pointing out that the 56 days may not be enough, because of a case where a terrorist suspect is incapable of being interrogated and has been under police control - in effect arrest - for some time.
If he is released into his family/friends' custody soemone who may kill you and your family could be moved to a third country uninvestigated.
I have met Al Queda guys, I doubt so very much that you know how you are threatening our freedoms, not defending them, by your naive assumptions.
I object very strongly to the assumption made so often that your ilk are "left wing." You sound like peope who wish you had been trots in the 70s and spent time camping with Vanessa Redgrave.
Where were you when I was expelled from the Cuba Young Communist Party party?
Drinking too much Emva Cream I expect.
Merkin said:
"That members of the RSPB or National Trust could end up with 56 days internment as 'terrorists' for travelling to a public meeting is ludicrous."
SILLY BOY!
Btw, you should know that the other guy with the interesting name and I do not seem to agree on everything. I'm not a fan of Brown's - don't like disloyalty.
And now he and his 'new lot' are just regurgitating the stuff about extended detention which Blair/Reid proposed - and is obviously necessary. Didn't hear or see Carlile - was it Alex (LibDem)? - who seems remarkably sensible muh of the time. But, yes, it is clear that the police need as long as it takes.
People who don't trust the government in their own free country should b off and find some other little haven where the Gods will wrap them in cotton wool, imho.
"In its report the committee concludes: "A power with such a significant impact on liberty as the proposed power to detain without charge for more than 28 days should, in our view, be justified by clear evidence that the need for such a power already exists, not by precautionary arguments that such a need may arise at some time in the future."
From todays Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2137634,00.html
Worth reading, anonymice.
"As far as we've heard there has not yet been a case where 28 days was inadequate."
Contra troll - good point, though as anonymous said several comments ago, "but which of you actually reads anything which doesn't suit you?"
Would it be safe to assume that the same applies to anonymous too?
Well said, Pixie : 'And trading insults just because 'I know more than you do' anonymous is childish'.
He seems to be getting worse.
Either that or he is actually a member of the Bush administration.
Check this out for childish fantasy :
'I have met Al Queda guys, I doubt so very much that you know how you are threatening our freedoms, not defending them, by your naive assumptions'
.
Well I have, and you are a real fool, because you have hidden your head in the sand, prob knowingly, because it is hard to imagine you are really that stupid,
I have worked with more muslim refugees from Saddam Hussein than you have written ignorant blogs.
Anyone who makes out that the UK Government is going to lock up the RSPB has got to be crackers, or a disingenuos traitor.
Oh, you read it in the "Independant"? LOL!
Oh and the Grauduard url quoted doesn't work, why am I not surprised?
Bye and Good Riddance!
http://tinyurl.com/yq86p4
No problem at all with the Guardian link, thanks ContraMan.
Good to see how the power of their own words has condemned them.
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Al-Quaeda (if there is even such a thing).
That is one of the greatest propaganda coups in history - the suggestion that Iraq had anything to do with '9/11'.
Exactly lav - what has Saddam Hussein got to do with Al Qaeda? I'm now utterly convinced of anonymous's sincerity!
Good to see these anonymous people have managed to get converts to their cause by gracing this thread with intelligent debate, and without arrogantly underestimating the intelligence of the other posters.
Erm...
Oh, and a shame anonymous can't spell Independent, whilst calling someone else a fool. No wonder he couldn't reach the Guardian link.
Well said, Trousers
Had to laugh at this : 'If he is released into his family/friends' custody soemone who may kill you and your family could be moved to a third country uninvestigated.'
The thought of all these bird-watchers getting the pokey coz they were denounced by some Anononime was wonderful.
Then I remembered about the Brit plane spotters who got lifted in Greece (they had probably got some of the rendition flights by chance)
'If he is released into his family/friends' custody soemone who may kill you and your family could be moved to a third country uninvestigated.'
Is that not exactly what happened to the Bin Laden family?
On 9/11 all flights were shut down except the ones taking the Bin Ladens out the country uninvestigated.
Good riddance, indeed.
There's something we must put to the credit of Anonymus, Merkin. He has contributed to exasperate some, amuse some and pointed out to a character we weren't used to.
Just like some people out in the streets.
Or in politics.
You have a point there, Jose.
For some reason I feel partly responsible for all this...
anonymous was good value though
this is the best comment thread I've read since at least this morning
Thanks Stef, we bow to your alphaness in these matters - I had half-thought of shutting up shop on these matters and simply referring everyone in your direction (having, myself, been referred by Les Politiques).
As you can see, the anono nimes are not usually seen here, but have certainly provided hours of fun for all the family.
I have to agree with anon on at least one thing though - Tony Blair probably does have visions
And so say all of us........
Post a Comment