Ernie, about to talk to a misguided member of the public with 'incorrect priorities'...
I think the public have got their priorities perfectly correct mate.
It's Guardian readers that I have a problem with.
But then I guess Guardian readers can mostly afford the luxury of pontificating on the finer details of this and that.
Nice rant ernie. Except it makes Zero sense.
These, much needed, initiatives are not instead of the things that need to be done on the economy and jobs. How did you get that impression? They aren't held up to be the number one priority either. Where did you get that impression?
Also, what is it with the Guardian reader cr@p? You vehemently object to people having a balanced, open view?
The OP was about someone actually doing something about this sinister surveillance society we have sleepwalked into, not the economy or anything else. I for one am very happy about that. I do object to being a number and carrying a card - I haven't got anything to hide, but neither have I got anything to prove. I was born a free person and intend to strenuously defend that status.
[i]But then I guess Guardian readers can mostly afford the luxury of pontificating on the finer details of this and that.[/i]
Surely you should be out on the streets giving the Guardian away to all the ordinary people. That way they to can become extraordinary and revel in the luxury that it affords.
someone actually doing something about this sinister surveillance society we have sleepwalked into
Sinister surveillance society ? ffs
Do you guys who come out with this infantile bollox about how "we have sleepwalked into" an Orwellian Nineteen Eighty-four police state, actually keep a straight face when your saying it ? Britain is not a "sinister surveillance society".
[b][i]"They aren't held up to be the number one priority either. Where did you get that impression?"[/i][/b]
How did I get that impression ? Well I got that impression from the fact that at the first given opportunity Clegg had to map out what his government hoped to achieve, he rabbited on about the House of Lords and cctv.
And another reason I get the impression that out-of-touch Guardian reading liberals treat that sort of stuff as priority, is by the fact that the Guardian threw it's weight behind the Libdems this election just gone because according to them, PR was the most important issue.......yeah, right.
I see the Guardian was creaming it's pants in their leader today over Clegg's speech btw.
And yes, reform of the second chamber is important and long overdue, as is PR, and hopefully it will be achieved within the next five years. But it is hardly an issue which comes first in people's minds - before jobs, income, health, crime, etc. And it doesn't even pose a problem for the incoming government.
BTW, I like the cctv cameras of our "sinister surveillance society" - they help to keep crime down in Central Croydon. And we can't have the "bobbies on the beat" which Clegg wants, on every street corner. In fact I would like more - when the multi-storey car parks in Central Croydon were privatised, the new owners removed all the cameras for cost savings......nice for lone women late at night 😐
If Clegg is really concerned about the rights and freedoms in a democratic society, why then, has he remained completely silent at the latest repression of the right to strike ? The right to strike by independent and free trade unions, is recognised the world over. And yet Britain has the most repressive employment legislation of any western industrialised country.
Never mind your "sinister surveillance society", where, apart from totalitarian states, do they ban strikes which 80% have voted in favour of ? Is Clegg not concerned by the farcical sight of a judge declaring a strike "illegal" because a union failed to notify all eligible voters that there were 11 spoiled ballot papers ?
To follow what Michael Meacher suggests in a letter to the Guardian today, how would have Clegg felt if his election had been disallowed because the number of spoiled ballot paopers had not been notified to all his eligible
voters ? ..........[i]ffs[/i]
We all expect the courts to be used in such absurd and comical ways in totalitarian countries such as Iran and Zimbabwe. But apparently the LibDems are just fine with that sort of nonsense also happening in Britain.
Nick Clegg, like all bourgeois liberals, is full of shit. He talks the talk .........plenty of fine words, empty rhetoric, an abundance of meaningless gesture politics, and with shed loads of political posturing. But walking the walk .....now that is altogether different.
And full of shit he is too........who can forget his stunning performance in the pre-election debates as he castigated Cameron and Brown with, "the more you two argue, the more you sound the same" ? Only to decide afterwards, that despite all the arguing, he wanted to be in the same government as the Tories.
Clegg, like all the other "compassionate politicians" from the Blair-Cameron-Clegg Clone Factory, cannot be trusted. Already in the few days since the general election he has sold out on Trident and an amnesty for undocumented foreigners after 10 years, two issues which he passionately "believed" in.
And last Friday in the Guardian he wrote :
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/14/nick-clegg-coalition-aims-are-liberal ]"The third runway at Heathrow has been cancelled. ID cards have been scrapped. There will be no more child detention."[/url]
There will be no more child detention ? .......well that's music to my ears. And it is [i]very[/i] straight forward, direct, and unambiguous.......he couldn't possible have meant anything other, than ,"there will be no more child detention"
Well no, not quite. There will still be child detention. On the following Monday it was reported :
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8688345.stm ]Children 'to remain' at Dungavel detention centre[/url]
Quote : [b][i]"Children of asylum seekers continue to be held at the Dungavel detention centre despite a coalition promise to end the practice."[/i][/b]
No wait......by Wednesday it's reported that :
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8691081.stm ]Child detention to end at Dungavel removal centre[/url]
Ah, that's better...........no, hang on ........quote : [b]"[i]Damian Green said families with children detained in Scotland would now be moved to a specialist centre in Bedfordshire.[/i]"[/b]
So they're moving children to Yarl's Wood - another detention centre hundreds of miles away. A detention centre which has been very severely criticised for it's treatment of children :
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/inside-yarls-wood-britains-shame-over-child-detainees-1674380.html ]Inside Yarl's Wood: Britain's shame over child detainees[/url]
Quote : [b][i]Children held in the infamous Yarl's Wood immigration detention centre are being denied urgent medical treatment, handled violently and left at risk of serious harm, a damning report by the Children's Commissioner for England will say tomorrow.
Sir Al Aynsley-Green's investigation paints a shocking picture of neglect and even cruelty towards children trapped within the centre's razor-wired walls, and finds "substantial evidence that detention is harmful and damaging to children and young people". [/b][/i]
So what exactly is the situation then ? Well according to the immigration minister :
[b][i]"I hope that we can have plans agreed within the next few months. Whilst this immediate review is ongoing, [u]current policy remains in place[/u]." [/i][/b]
So despite Clegg's clear and unequivocal statement, they haven't "agreed" yet........they are going to have a f*"king review.
Well let me save you the time and cost Clegg, cause you don't need a f"^king review ........you waffling liberal tosser .....you didn't need a "review" when you spoke out against child detention, so why one now to [i]actually[/i] end child detention ?......just ****ing do it, and do it now.
I get the impression that out-of-touch Guardian reading liberals
Just out of interest who do you hate more them or the rabid right wing xenophobi euro sceptics?
Say Tree hugger lefty liberal or UKIP whose worse in your view?
I suspect there will be more backtracking like on child detention.
a nice tangle appearing over the Human Rights Act. Still no commentators nor the London based parties seem to understand that they cannot fiddle with the application of the European convention on human rights in Scotland nor can they remove the right to appeal to Strasbourg without leaving the EU.
So the proposed "British bill of rights" would in fact be totally meaningless in Scotland if it attempted to reduce the provisions of the ECoHR
Has Ernie's keyboard cooled down yet ?
yes but he is trying to decide who he hates most the hard right or the soft left
Is it too soon to tell him that the BA strike is back on after the union won their appeal?
Just out of interest ........
I doubt whether you are very interested. And to be honest, I wasn't really looking to having an argument/justifying my comments. In fact, I wasn't really expecting anyone to read my rather mammoth post.
And yes allthepies, everything's cool with my keyboard........although I won't deny my language tends to get a tad more colourful the longer my post is....... as I get into a roll, I start writing more like I speak. But I wouldn't read too much into that - I freely use expletives when I am perfectly happy and relaxed 🙂
Is it too soon to tell him that the BA strike is back on after the union won their appeal?
Well it's certainly not too late to tell me that Nick Clegg has finally broken his silence and condemned the use of the courts to attempt in an deny workers the right to strike ..........has he done so ?
the use of the courts to attempt in an deny workers the right to strike
LOL ! that makes a lot of sense 😀
Still......... posting bollox has never bothered me before 8)
It's Guardian readers that I have a problem with.
Yeah, me too. I note they have a tendency to write long rants complaining about other Guardian readers.
I note they have a tendency to write long rants complaining about other Guardian readers.
Really ? Well I'll be ****ed...............I thought it was only me 😕
Personally I have very mixed feelings about the current situation. Its basically rooted in "tribal politics" whereby if you believe that a minimum standard of care for all is a mark of a civilised society you must also therefore believe in state intervention in all things. Personally I don't, but I do beleive in the uncommon, i.e. common sense politics.
There are elements of all three major parties policies that are sensible and it has always seemed to me that a middle of the road approach isn't in fact indecisive, it is sesnsible and what the vast majority of people want. So for that reason, I really hope that we are seeing the end of tribalism, dogma and stupidity in our leaders.
So for me I'm standing off to the side with my arms folded saying go on then, show me you can do it. Juries out, hopes are in.
Regarding the OP, I have no problem with technology being used to fight crime. In fact I firmly beleive that if you wish to live safely it is incumbent on the individual to support the forces of Law and Order. However that has to be proportional to the reality. Much of what we have been seeing simply is not, so generally I am glad to see the back of ID cards etc. However, I have no problem with a national DNA database, I mean after all we've had fingerprints taken for over a century, and I don't recall any misuse of that data. It seems to me that the DNA database does have a real impact on serious crime.
However, I have no problem with a national DNA database, I mean after all we've had fingerprints taken for over a century, and I don't recall any misuse of that data
is there a national database of fingerprints?
thing with DNA is we are keepin git off everyone arrested/detained not even everyone charged. I dont think any other country os this draconian. Not sure what I think on the issue to be sure as I can see both points of views
Sorry ernie forgot you like to sound off not debate my mistake.
Fingerprint data is rather different to DNA data though. There are lot more ways in which it can be misused - leaks to insurance companies and exposing illegitimate children / relationships are two that spring to mind.
It'd make genocide & eugenics simpler too - no need to go around measuring skulls and the like..
There's also the fact that the government seem quite capable of losing sensitive data - child benefits records and vetting data for security clearance are two off the top of my head. The loss of vetting data is absolutely ridiculous - the whole point of vetting is to investigate someone's background extremely thoroughly, so as to assess the likelihood of them being blackmailed. The kind of data that's collected is of course about things like affairs, closet homosexuality, visits to prostitutes and fetishes, with the government having as much to lose by its release as those who were vetted.
As an anarchist, I have an inbuilt mistrust of authority to always do the right thing. I don't want authorities holding any more data about me than they need, and that handled in the most scrupulous manner.
Holding my data on the basis that I "might" commit crime without personal circumstantial evidence on which to base suspicion, seems plain wrong to me. Such things weaken the trust between state and citizen IMO.
Points taken re fingerprints. What I meant was in an investigatory context, i.e. used to fit someone up.
Personally, I think that commercial data gathering is a lot more pernicious and far more likely to lead to abuse. i.e. insurance companies already do it and already discriminate against people they deem to be a risk, which rather defeats the whole point of spreading risk by buying insurance IMHO.
Well, that was good for a laugh. Someone getting angry about people who like the idea of being free.
If anything it makes me feel ever more comfortable and assured in my belief. I am not a number. I don't even want crazy angry mouth-frothers to be reduced to a number either.
We absolutely have sleepwalked into a police/surveillance state, in my view, but a lot of people are too angry and scared to see it.
Ernie - I couldn't disagree with you more. And that makes me feel happy. And calm.
Ernie - I couldn't disagree with you more. And that makes me feel happy.
😕 Really ? .........your emotions and feelings are molded and affected by an anonymous stranger on an internet forum ?
Still, it's nice to know that I've made someone feel happy.......
Really guys, I think this idea of an all powerful surveillance organisation is a bit rich - the civil service are poor at IT systems and fankly the processes often suck as well. So the fact that the biometric passports and the ID cards have been dropped is a good thing because the tech isn't mature enough and we don't have the organisational maturity to use it to its full extent. I should also point that there are not really any other countries that could do it properly....
porterclough - Member
Ermm.. surely interest rates were so low that they can only go up - it's a one way bet
Not having a mortgage, but having savings, I'm holding my breath every month that things will creep upwards soon.
....and thereby hangs the tale
Think about the party of the blue rinse brigade living off investments pensions and savings and think about who benefits from high interest rates. then try to piece together which government tends towards the economics of high interest.
The economy has been screwed by the bankers
Complete load of old cobblers.
Banks have been scr*wing up royally every decade or so pretty regularly since forever.
In the '70s they poured money into African and South American dictatorships, which all then went bankrupt. In the '80s they poured money into a housing boom in this country which turned into negative equity, followed by the LTCM crash and a foray into Russia which also turned sour. Each time this happened, they recovered by carrying on milking the good old British consumer via their current accounts. Business as usual.
This time around, the banking regulatory system had been changed by our good friend Gordon "newbie" Brown; instead of the Bank of England doing the regulating - which it had done just fine for the previous 200 years - we had the totally useless FSA. Instead of putting a check on the banks greed, they simply got everyone to fill out endless pointless forms.
Don't blame the banks. Blame the numpty who changed the system for the sake of change, and made it worse. Oh, and the same numpty who had a "Golden Rule" about borrowing, that he then just rewrote when it looked like he might breach it.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is. Nice one Gordon.
Ok so Brown is responsible for the sub prime market collapse in America and the subsequent finaial meltdown because the FSA replaced the SIB in 1986 ...thanks for sharing
Ps when did the B of E ever regulate?
Political music to my ears would be seeing Blair on trial in the Hague, together with laws brought in to ensure that any government official who lies to the electorate or who refuses to truthfully answer a direct question is denied salary for a year together with their pension pot for starters.
Seeing other political spin masters lose their ill gotten gains regardless of their allegiances would be a massive boost to people power IMHO.
Ps when did the B of E ever regulate?
Here's what the Bank of England's website says:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/history/major_developments5.htm
In 1997 the Government announced its intention to transfer full operational responsibility for monetary policy to the Bank of England. The Bank thus rejoined the ranks of the world's "independent" central banks. However, debt management on behalf of the Government was transferred to HM Treasury, [b]and the Bank's regulatory functions passes to the new Financial Services Authority.[/b]
Ok so Brown is responsible for the sub prime market collapse in America and the subsequent finaial meltdown because the FSA replaced the SIB in 1986 ...thanks for sharing
Brown did preside over a massive increase in public and private debt, along with a huge housing bubble, and didn't put the brakes on. I think it's clear that we would all be far better off if we weren't a hugely indebted nation with a reliance on constantly rising house prices when the crisis hit.
[i]Disadvantaged kids 7 times less likely to get to university etc etc. System gravitates against them blah blah. Thats the real problem. Basically we need to kick out the jobs for the boys, and get on with getting the best out of the best people. Can't see the Oxbridge/Eton crowd going along with that, sadly. [/i]
Not totally true. Smart people generally become better off, and have smarter kids, therefore the majority of kids at good unis are from better off families. And there are still plenty chances for the smart kids from poorer families to do well. With a bit of luck Cameron will re-introduce the assisted places scheme so less well off families can get bright kids into good schools.
It is TRUE Eton confers no advantage to the pupils that go there due to the standard of edcuation it delivers as it all it genetic. If these intelligent affluent people still pay the £25 k per year fees surely that makes them idiots? 🙄
Thank **** Conversatives are slashing through the waste mountain of surplus.
The Association of HIPS providers are threatening legal action as it will have 3,000 staff out of work.
Loving it! 😆
Brown did preside over a massive increase in public and private debt, along with a huge housing bubble, and didn't put the brakes on. I think it's clear that we would all be far better off if we weren't a hugely indebted nation with a reliance on constantly rising house prices when the crisis hit.
Well it was mainly Blair that was PM. How can the govt put the brakes on housing?. We should only measure our politicians in how they respond to the situation no one caused it other than boom and bust is in the nature of capitalism as the greed always goes too far and goes wrong once the elusive confidence goes.
Not totally true. Smart people generally become better off, and have smarter kids, therefore the majority of kids at good unis are from better off families.
Not totally true. Better off people are generally better at providing the environment required for education, buying books, speaking to their kids etc. and as a result, their kids do well in education.
How can the govt put the brakes on housing?
By using a measure of inflation that takes into account the cost of housing, rather than CPI, a change which Gordon Brown instituted. The house price bubble would have driven inflation up, and the BoE would have increased interest rates to correct. End result is that house prices are managed as part of the inflation control system.
I think Gordon Brown famously said something about boom and bust, and how he'd beaten it.
There was this bloke called Kanute once...
The house price bubble would have driven inflation up, and the BoE would have increased interest rates to correct.
So what effect would the "increased interest rates" have had on the rest of the economy then ?
And you are basically saying that the higher interest rates would have increased mortgage repayments to such a level, that many people would no longer able to afford the monthly payments, and therefore the rise in house prices would have slowed down.
Well if it was that simple and people could be just put off by the increased [i]cost[/i] of buying a house, then house price inflation would never have occurred to the level which it did. The market would have regulated the price.
People were not clamouring to buy houses because they were "dirt cheap".........[i]that was not the problem.[/i] They were buying houses because they were mortgaging themselves up to the eyeballs.
What you are basically suggesting is that the government should have interfered with the market and in effect, brought in price controls for housing. Well that is certainly an option, but one which is unlikely to appeal to the free-marketeers of New Labour and the Tory Party.
So how about the other option then ? If there is too much money chasing not enough produce, how about increasing the supply ? An increase in supply always drives down prices - so we are told.
So build more houses then ! There is after all a desperate shortage of housing - is there not ?
