Why is the Home Secretary so determined to bring this back at this moment in time other than to say the government is protecting the general public from terrorism. The Law when it first came up was derided because it gave the home office effectively car-blanch access to everyone’s emails, text messages and social media postings. Giving this to them and the security services is wrong and would likely force the costs up as the systems needed to store the information would be very high.
I do agree with the comment if you have nothing to hide it should not bother people, but it does bother me in that I do not want people who are not the direct recipient read what might be private messages. It is not that far to take the right to open and read letters as that could be placed under the same banner, also what about faxes which is another method of communication.
This all comes from the murder of Lee Rigby in Woolich last week and yet it is reported that the pair under arrest seemed to be pretty well known to the security services. One was photographed attending extremist protests, reported to have been arrested trying to cross into Somalia from Kenya both activities should have been red flags and he should have been monitored, not followed, but his usage of email, text messages and general internet usage. We are still waiting for the report on why this was not carried out.
That would be a good law as the people on them are likely to either be radicalized or on the path to becoming radicalized.
It would not be hard to monitor website access but that should be linked to other evidence like people on protests, or standing on street corners handing out leaflets as people do access these sites for research for essays, news articles, learn about people for acting parts they might be doing. Not everyone is looking to join the fighters against the west. I am at the moment planning a possible story arc for my novels which does center around aspects of radicalization of people but I am not interested in joining them but I want to know how the preachers do change people’s view of the world.
With the publication of the Leveson Report yesterday, Thursday 29th November, and the conclusions and recommendations I think any law even to underpin a new regulatory body is not the way forward unless the law just sets it up. Parliament how every good intentioned must never be allowed to censor the press, see China and the old Soviet Block.
I have had a run in with the Daily Mail a good few years ago at the Lib Dem conference here in Bournemouth. Because of how the reporter reported the fact I got up and asked the leader a question quite a few people now, even after seven years plus hate the paper and do not buy it or read it, personally I do not care, I read it to find out how their reporters are seeing and writing about a story.
One idea i came up with is to as suggested set up a completely independent body to police the press, but at the same time bring in a similar system as used in the medical world. This would give, i think, the public confidence that if a reporter does mess up then he can have his accreditation removed pretty much banning him from working for or writing freelance. A second aspect to this would be a way of giving people holding press conferences the knowledge that everyone attending is accredited and not just there to write wrong or misleading stories.
A lot of reporters write excellent pieces, run very good investigations, we would not know about how the politicians were abusing the expenses system if it is not for the Daily Telegraph; or cash of questions. I do find some of the stories are wrong and are written to sell the papers; take the Daily Mail yesterday on the front page they had a photo of a child of one of the contestants on I’m a Celeb. Why run that piece, it is not news in my eyes. They did it because I’m a Celeb is a popular tele program, which is pretty crap, but people watch it. I would not have a problem if they were doing it to highlight something, but the picture did not. it just showed a crying child with no real indication as to why she was crying. If you looked inside at Page 3, there you got told why the child was crying.
I look at most of the front pages and with the red tops about 70% of their head lines show the famous in difficult to just situations, having affairs or being stupid.
The new regulatory body should be allowed to fine, award damages to the people affected and unable to afford the costs of libel.
The plans announced by the PM and DPM today look really good especially the bit about underwriting loans to property developers and housing associations. This should be a good start as long as the banks actually loan.
This will be the real crux, as with the idea of QE and the over 300 billion pumped into the money markets, where is it, sat with the banks, making them more profits and paying bonuses to the staff not where it should be in the hands of the people and businesses that need it.
The following link is to a blog on the banks and their profit – http://ukhousebubble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/uk-bank-pre-tax-profits-higher-now-than.html
The report shows that the most vital aspect and the one group of players most hit by the crisis back in 2008 are now just four years on making more profits, how come especially with the bad debts and all the other problems that caused the crisis. They put up their interest rates and took the money from the BoE which was supposed to filter down to the peoples hands.
As the economy needs money, people need jobs to give them the ability to buy goods, businesses need the orders so they can make more and hopefully employ people. All of those are being effected by the fact the banks are a law unto themselves it seems.
Deal with the reluctance to lend and pretty quickly I do believe we will see a turn around in the economy.
The idea from DC about setting up a Growth Implementation Committee is really good, but are they going to look at other areas of growth other than Infrastructure and housing. I hope they do as the other business areas need to be supported just as much.
A really good test for how determined the committee members are will come when they face the big problem and that is not red tape but financing the building projects. I wish i could remember where I read something about the housing shortage, but it said the people running the projects had the permissions but they could not find the money as the banks were not lending.
The is the real problem that does need fixing first.
In regards the businesses, I have already blogged on a way of helping them get the money they need to operate, but it does need someone to think about the plan, but it would work I think
The current problem that a couple have with the law because they shot at a number of people who broke into their home should not be before the police or courts. The reason is very simple they are doing the same as the population of the UK would do if we were invaded by a second power. All of us would likely jump to defend our shores from the aggressors. Is there any difference between that and shooting at people who invade your home. In common sense no, but in reality and in the eyes of the law you cannot defend your home, so to take that to the extreme the British government could drag every person who defended the UK in front of the courts to face the same charges, rather than the way it would be celebrating the heroes that defended the UK.
We have the ability to defend our person, but that like the law above needs to be changed as you do not know who is holding a weapon or grabbing your bag, it might take longer than the time written into the law to sub-due or get your bag back. To me that is the same as defending your home. The people attacked or their home invaded should be protected from punishment for defending themselves or home not arrested and have finger prints, DNA and photo taken and then be worried about what the CPS will do.