Protection of Freedoms Bill

1. Diplomacy is generally taken to mean all interaction between states short of war. Pragmatic reality may be a part of it but then again, Hitler's foreign policy from 1933-38 was built largely on bluff.
2. The rest of your post is just high blown tosh with phrases like 'Dicean principle' thrown in to impress the feeble-minded. As far as 'National Sovereignty' is concerned, what we have and have had in the past may not be perfect but it was subject to Parliamentary review and the Parliament was a British Parliament elected by British people and, despite your scepticism, it proved remarkably responsive to the electorate and ensured that Britain was one of the most politically stable societies anywhere in the world for the last 350 or so years.
3. Supranational bodies are materially different and, as an electorate, we are linked to them only indirectly. I am at a loss to think of any freedom bestowed or guaranteed to the populace of the UK due to our subjection to a supranational body though I can think of numerous historical liberties which have been curtailed thereby and the foulness of the European Arrest Warrant may stand bail for the rest of them.
4. Any grouping not accountable to the democratic process is, by definition, undemocratic, and therefore, I would argue, nothing we should base any of our liberties upon. We have never be so subjected to supranational agencies as now and, no coincidence, the state and its agents have not had so much power to interfere in our lives since the reign of James II. Please remind me, how many government agencies now have the right to enter my property without a warrant compared with thirty years ago?
This thread seems full of people who are arguing at cross-purposes. Iolis is correct in that there are times when (and I REALLY hate to admit it) the EU, (stinking undemocratic etc., etc.) actually is of use to provide occasional checks on the national government, much to the annoyance of (particularly) the previous pack of traitors in power. Iolis' post, had you read it carefully, is correct and he just uses precise language to describe it. You point 4 is utterly correct, and most of point 3 is also demonstrably so.

Your point (1) might have been disputed by the Wehrmacht, who weren't exactly bluffing. Hitler may have been prone to making mistakes which cost his country dearly, but at the outbreak of war between the UK and Germany, he didn't really need to bluff. I don't agree with point (2); it used to be the case, but in the last fifteen years, the national and EU parliaments have been as undemocratic as each other, as you yourself subsequently state.

The fact that Iolis is correct in that one could play off one undemocratic body against another to an individual citizen's benefit on occasion, does not make your points (3) & (4) wrong.
 
Are you able to answer my question or not?
Are you going to admit you were wrong and that there is nothing level about employment around Europe?
 

Iolis

LE
Are you going to admit you were wrong and that there is nothing level about employment around Europe?
So you cannot answer it!

I thought not!
 
So you cannot answer it!

I thought not!
What that you were talking out of your arse?
You were
There you go, answered.
Whats the matter do you not like people to point out the glaring flaws in the socialist utopia you so admire?
Iolis_the_guru_on_how_great_the_EU_is said:
He can hardly complain that his business is being affected if every other state in Europe is bound by the same rules.
Come on, lets have some big words from you to disguise that fact you were talking bollocks.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
This thread seems full of people who are arguing at cross-purposes. Iolis is correct in that there are times when (and I REALLY hate to admit it) the EU, (stinking undemocratic etc., etc.) actually is of use to provide occasional checks on the national government, much to the annoyance of (particularly) the previous pack of traitors in power. Iolis' post, had you read it carefully, is correct and he just uses precise language to describe it. You point 4 is utterly correct, and most of point 3 is also demonstrably so.

Your point (1) might have been disputed by the Wehrmacht, who weren't exactly bluffing. Hitler may have been prone to making mistakes which cost his country dearly, but at the outbreak of war between the UK and Germany, he didn't really need to bluff. I don't agree with point (2); it used to be the case, but in the last fifteen years, the national and EU parliaments have been as undemocratic as each other, as you yourself subsequently state.

The fact that Iolis is correct in that one could play off one undemocratic body against another to an individual citizen's benefit on occasion, does not make your points (3) & (4) wrong.
I was very specific in quoting the years 33-38. Hitler remarked that, had France and the UK resisted his re-occupation of the Rhineland, he would have had no choice but to withdraw. His Czech and Austrian adventures saw much of his mechanised and armoured forces on the roadside with the bonnet up.

You may be right about the undemocratic nature of our Parliament but it is at least within our power to change; we are only an element of the Brussels Parliament. As for the fallacious concept of unconditionally empowering an unelected body simply because it might have made a benign change at some point in its existence (assuming it actually was benign) - intellectual bankruptcy. Not every Nazi or Fascist programme was bad and failed to deliver...
 
It's an Act of Law. Which kinda means that if it doesn't explictly ban something, then it's permitted. Think about that one.
 

Iolis

LE
What that you were talking out of your arse?
You were
There you go, answered.
Whats the matter do you not like people to point out the glaring flaws in the socialist utopia you so admire?

Come on, lets have some big words from you to disguise that fact you were talking bollocks.
You are not doing very well at all are you Stacker?! You see once you take away the dreadful language and the the unsupported assertion then there is not very much left is there? You have made a statement and you have failed to support it and now seek to disguise the depth of your ignorance by concealing it beneath a layer of profanity.

You simply do not have the intelligence or the self-awarness to fully appreciate just how foolish you look do you?!

If you want a word Stacker, try argumentum ad ignorantum, now run away and play with trolls of your own age!
 
You are not doing very well at all are you Stacker?! You see once you take away the dreadful language and the the unsupported assertion then there is not very much left is there? You have made a statement and you have failed to support it and now seek to disguise the depth of your ignorance by concealing it beneath a layer of profanity.

You simply do not have the intelligence or the self-awarness to fully appreciate just how foolish you look do you?!

If you want a word Stacker, try argumentum ad ignorantum, now run away and play with trolls of your own age!
Yes, fail to support it by putting up your exact words.
You might impress some people on this site by pretending to know what you are talking about but I think its fairly clear to others that you are a dick who approves of rules without any thought how they will affect business, but hey so long as its another step to the socialist paradise you so desperatly seek who cares?
7000 squaddies are about to lose their jobs but taxpayers money will be wasted paying people who think that having kids isnt their problem. What a great grasp of economics you have, like when you stated, (and I quote again)
He can hardly complain that his business is being affected if every other state in Europe is bound by the same rules.
No, of course his business wont be affected if hes paying completely different taxes from everyone else in the EU but has a set of socalist rules imposed on him. :roll:

You're not half as clever as you pretend you just bend the English language out of shape in the hope people wont see you really don't have a clue when it come to business, much like the fuckwits who run the EU.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Do you know what it actually means?




I am happy that you are impressed!




Your use of the past-tense is interesting. Historical accuracy may have to give way to conteporary reality




You are linked directly to supranational bodies. You are linked directly to the European Parliament through direct elections to it every four years. You are linked to it directly in your ability to petition the Parliament. You are linked directly to the European Commission with the right to petition it directly. You are linked to it directly with the ability to respond to the public consultation documents it publishes for you to read relating to legislative proposals You are linked indirectly to the Council of Ministers through your own elected representative who attends the meetings of the Council of Ministers and so on.

Your concerns about the European Arrest Warrant is shared by others just as there is concern over the 'foulness' of the extradition treaty which your own government has allowed its subjects to be extradited to the US on a mere summons and without the necessity of providing evidence in support of it. Something that the European Arrest Warrant at least demands before it is issued. You appear unhappy that our own Government appears willing to sacrifice its citizens to the chance or caprice of the United States but unhappy with ceding it to our neighbours who exercise somewhat more restraint.



I wonder if you can tell me in what way you think our politicians are in any way accountable to you outside of a general election? They might be accountable to the Daily Mail, or another tabloid newspaper which likes to think it represents your views, they might even be accountable to large business corporations but they are certainly not accountable to you! There was much made before the general election about the proposal to give constituents the right to recall delinguent MPs. Its gone very quiet since hasn't it?

As for powers of entry, there are many hundreds of them. Are you able to analyse them and tell me how many of them originate from Europe and how many of them from our own Parliament? I know the answer to that one. Do you?
1. Yes, I know what diplomacy means, it is part of my professional portfolio.
2. I'm glad you're happy.
3. My use of a past tense is because I'm describing an historical fact - any other tense would be inappropriate.
4. In what way does the European Parliament reflect the accountability of the UK Parliament to a UK electorate (clue- look at the composition - it doesn't)?
5. At what point did I express the opinion that the lop-sided extradition treaty with the US was acceptable ('lop-sided' is a clue as to my position)?
6. If you dislike the limited powers of replacement for UK MP's for a UK electorate, on what grounds do you approve of having European MP's who are even further removed and most of whom are immune from UK sanction?
7. I specifically asked about warrant requirements for entry, please answer that specific question - it is a judicial standard and germane to the point in question as it touches on so-called 'ancient liberties'.
 
I was very specific in quoting the years 33-38. Hitler remarked that, had France and the UK resisted his re-occupation of the Rhineland, he would have had no choice but to withdraw. His Czech and Austrian adventures saw much of his mechanised and armoured forces on the roadside with the bonnet up.

You may be right about the undemocratic nature of our Parliament but it is at least within our power to change; we are only an element of the Brussels Parliament. As for the fallacious concept of unconditionally empowering an unelected body simply because it might have made a benign change at some point in its existence (assuming it actually was benign) - intellectual bankruptcy. Not every Nazi or Fascist programme was bad and failed to deliver...
Oh all right; didn't spot the dates. And just to cave in a bit more, the "adventures" you quote weren't exactly invasions. At least a significant minority would have been happy to see the Germans. The rest of your post is valid and I agree with it all.

Like I said before, Iolis was correct in what he said. I just don't see it as intellectual bankruptcy. I would still get rid of the lot. I would rather struggle with the deficiencies of our own parliament, who (as Iolis pointed out, are thoroughly undemocratic in between elections) rather than deal with people who are unelected to start with. The EU commissioners system is designed to allow them to pass almost any law they want without hindrance from the "masses". I can see why the French take to the barricades now and again.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Oh all right; didn't spot the dates. And just to cave in a bit more, the "adventures" you quote weren't exactly invasions. At least a significant minority would have been happy to see the Germans. The rest of your post is valid and I agree with it all.

Like I said before, Iolis was correct in what he said. I just don't see it as intellectual bankruptcy. I would still get rid of the lot. I would rather struggle with the deficiencies of our own parliament, who (as Iolis pointed out, are thoroughly undemocratic in between elections) rather than deal with people who are unelected to start with. The EU commissioners system is designed to allow them to pass almost any law they want without hindrance from the "masses". I can see why the French take to the barricades now and again.
Fair enough - Iolis deserves a prod though, he's being unusually obtuse. I almost thought he was Ashie at one point.
 
If you want to give your DNA to the state, go ahead. But I'll decide what happens with my DNA, thank you, not you and not the state.

And stop watching CSI. All DNA evidence proves is the presence of some DNA, not whodunnit. It is circumstantial evidence and, as such, will not exclude anyone from any enquiry. You'll find that your DNA will have been spread over numerous crime scenes.
I dont watch TV at all, but I suggest that if CSI gives a little bit of facts about forensic science perhaps you should watch it as you have posted complete drivel. DNA evidence is presented with a probability factor, they will give a probability that the DNA evidence is that of the accused or for example in a case I have been involved with that someone is 99.99 percent not the father of a certain child..... hardly circumstantial is it? Obviously in a criminal case the probability has to be damned high and linked with other evidence, but it is far from being just circumstantial!

As for having DNA spread all over other crime scenes is that being a bit hysterically paranoid?

Thats a very dangerous road to go down. Whats next, CCTV in everyones homes? Everyone fitted with tracking devices? Nothing to hide nothing to fear, right?

You might have full confidence in our authorities and their desire to do good but I bloody well don't. The State has no buisness with my DNA.
Where did I mention anything about CCTV and tracking devices? And no I dont have the confidence in our authorities that is why I wrote (perhaps a bit too passively) BUT, and it is indeed a very very big BUT, the control of that information must be scrupilously adhered to.... and that is where the scheme would probably fail.

You would have made a great Nazi coming out with that load of crap.

Tell me, what the hell as it got to do with the state what i do as long as it is legal? I'll tell you, **** all.

We are the most surveilled country in the world and it is getting worse.

As for the control and adherence of that information, do you seriously trust the state to look after all that information and not lose it? I bloody don't.


the Ceausescu's would love this country now, they would, if they were alive, be having orgasms at the total control of the people by the state.
If there is anyone talking utter crap it is you my paranoid friend...once again where did I mention surveillance? and if you believe that the state having your DNA can tell what you get up to..do you perchance think that they can track you on a daily basis because they have a sample of your spit or hair?....perhaps you should try watching CSI as OTTAR has suggested you might learn something!

And no as I have written above I dont actually trust the state to control the information adequately, if they did then as I said 'be scrupilous about the information' then there wouldnt be a problem for me. As for the last bit you wrote I totally agree with you but still fail to see the correlation between my DNA on a database and my life being controlled by the state!

The bottom line is that you can share your DNA "fingerprint" with up to a thousand other people in the UK alone. If one of them happens to be Jack the Ripper, Rapist or Racist, you could be deep in the sh1t through no fault of your own. Nothing to hide? You've still got plenty to fear.
May I ask where you got the figure of a thousand from? I have read that DNA is 99.9% similar in every single human being, but that the extra 0.1% is about 3 million seperate indicator differences in each person.

Dear God, man, have you thought seriously about that?

The theory may work, the practice is dangerous hogwash. Anyone who really thinks that the DNA database would not be misused is remarkably naive. I give you two examples; if you are a Jew, your DNA will show it. As I remember, that little escapade ended badly. The other obvious reason we should never allow the police to get their slimy hands on a universal DNA database is the same reason that we don't give the police a set of our door keys or access to our bank accounts. It's a little thing called privacy. And we don't have to justify that to any fcuker.

Some crimes may be solved thereby, but it is far, far more likely to result in HMRC or the police going on fishing expeditions with YOU as the target. The Jewish question is reason alone to never, ever allow the police such powers.

In a Munich street in 1937 "So, Herr Rosenblum, your papers, please. As a good German citizen, if you have nothing to hide, you will of course have nothing to fear from us in the Geheime Staatspolizei..."
Once again I didnt make my stance clear enough, no currently I dont think it would be used correctly, however I think your parrallel with the 'jewish question' is paranoid in the extreme, as pointed out by others we are far from being in a racist police/state dictatorship. And once again what the **** has your DNA got to do with privacy?

I am happy enough to carry a Dutch ID card for after all it contains my mugshot and my signature, I am happy enough to carry a UK driving license and UK passport as they are similar to my ID Card, however one card with my DNA, Health Records, My non-existant Criminal Record and other biometric information which would have been freely available to officials, and now it seems some unofficial uses - NO WAY


Totally agree. But I will state once again I have no problem with the Police having my DNA, I dont commit robberies, murder, rapes burgalries etc. so in the respect of major crimes no I have nothing to hide so there is no problem for me. However no I wouldnt want all that sort of information on an ID card either.

The argument that some of you have about about a DNA database being an invasion of privacy is laughable. Yes it should be controlled stricter than a strict thing but if doesnt show what you do or where you have been unless a sample is picked up at a crime scene and it matches yours to any great degree.

It wont show that you spend every friday night down the 'Dog and Duck' or that on saturday mornings you are off shtooping your secretary whilst your wife is visiting her mother (unless someone murders your secretary and you have to explain a few things!)

However if it shows that a guy picked up for drunk driving and is bunged in the cells overnight, someone who has never been in trouble with the police in his life, is suddenly flagged up on a routine DNA check for a score of peadophile attacks or rapes, and he cant give an adequate accountability for each attack , and then the police find petrol recipts to place him near some of the crime scenes and they take samples of his hair to match up with a couple of strands recoverd at the crime scenes etc etc ...is that such a bad thing?

And dont forget one of the main breakthroughs in DNA forensics is the fact that convictions have been overturned by DNA evidence... if it can prove a probability of guilt it can equally prove a probability of innocence...wouldnt it be good to prove that innocence long before a court case is even considered?
 
British law is based on, by and large, a presumption of innocence, that you have not committed the crime you have been accused of and the State has to prove that you did committ that crime.

The retention of DNA is a small step towards the presumption of guilt, that you are guilty of the crime you are acused of and you have to prove that you are innocent.
 

ottar

LE
I dont watch TV at all, but I suggest that if CSI gives a little bit of facts about forensic science perhaps you should watch it as you have posted complete drivel. DNA evidence is presented with a probability factor, they will give a probability that the DNA evidence is that of the accused or for example in a case I have been involved with that someone is 99.99 percent not the father of a certain child..... hardly circumstantial is it? Obviously in a criminal case the probability has to be damned high and linked with other evidence, but it is far from being just circumstantial!
Is English not your first language? Once again, for the hard of reading.
DNA does not prove who committed a crime, all it proves is that someone's DNA was present at a crime scene. It does not prove that the owner of the DNA was at the crime scene, it does not prove that the owner was present when a crime was committed, nor does it prove that the owner committed a crime. It is circumstantial evidence, nothing more.

As for having DNA spread all over other crime scenes is that being a bit hysterically paranoid?
No it isn't. Your DNA is spread everywhere you have been, and a few places you haven't. Your DNA is present in lots of crime scenes.

perhaps you should try watching CSI as OTTAR has suggested you might learn something!
Clearly English is not your first language. I said "stop watching CSI", because it's bollocks - just like your assessment of DNA evidence.
 
Once again I didnt make my stance clear enough, no currently I dont think it would be used correctly, however I think your parrallel with the 'jewish question' is paranoid in the extreme, as pointed out by others we are far from being in a racist police/state dictatorship. And once again what the **** has your DNA got to do with privacy?
Twenty-five years ago I would have agreed with you, but look what they have got away with, since then? Virtually pornographic x-ray pictures (not the air-brushed lies released as examples) at Manchester airport? The ones that are so marginal that in some places they exempt children as they don't want accusations of making a pornographic pseudo-photograph of a minor?

We can discuss how far they may go in the future, but I am (possibly paranoid, but) certain that if technology is available the government WILL try and get it used eventually. The "trial" of the x-ray strip machine at Manchester soon became a permanent fixture. If that machine becomes portable enough, they will try and use it in as many places as possible. The Jewish Question has NOT gone away; just ask any Jew (I am not one, but I understand the vibes well enough).

To certain pressure groups/government agencies, enough is never enough; they do not understand the concept of "compromise" in its' genuine sense. It is just one more step in the agenda. It is unlikely to be Jews the next time; next time it will probably be gays in some Islamic country.

As for privacy and DNA, why should you allow any person other than your own doctor to see your DNA profile if, as if very likely in the future, it gives the probability of certain genetic illnesses? If there is any genetic correlation with mental health and DNA, I think a lot of people would be very unhappy with anything but the most stringent application of privacy. Each to his own; if you don't care, then fair enough, but I worry an awful lot.

If I'm paranoid, I'll be paranoid in private, thanks.
 

Finn1939

War Hero
Where did I mention anything about CCTV and tracking devices? And no I dont have the confidence in our authorities that is why I wrote (perhaps a bit too passively) BUT, and it is indeed a very very big BUT, the control of that information must be scrupilously adhered to.... and that is where the scheme would probably fail.

I am just pointing out the dangers of the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" attitude.
 
Is English not your first language? Once again, for the hard of reading.
DNA does not prove who committed a crime, all it proves is that someone's DNA was present at a crime scene. It does not prove that the owner of the DNA was at the crime scene, it does not prove that the owner was present when a crime was committed, nor does it prove that the owner committed a crime. It is circumstantial evidence, nothing more.



No it isn't. Your DNA is spread everywhere you have been, and a few places you haven't. Your DNA is present in lots of crime scenes.



Clearly English is not your first language. I said "stop watching CSI", because it's bollocks - just like your assessment of DNA evidence.
Is English YOUR first language?, get an adult to help your read this... "DNA evidence is presented with a probability factor, they will give a probability that the DNA evidence is that of the accused" ... I never said it would PROVE...P R O V E...read it again... PROVE... that the accused did it, just a probability, which if high enough and linked with other evidence is good enough for a court of law!

Heres a fact for you matey...I do believe I wrote it before (get an adult to read my last post for you) I will write it in upper case just in case you miss it.... I DONT WATCH TV.... I LIVE IN CZ ITS ALL IN CZECH AND ITS FECKING SHOITE but you really do need to brush up on your knowledge of FORENSIC DNA..so perhaps you SHOULD start watching CSI
 
Old_nis, Finn, I see where you are both coming from, it IS a problem.. the fact that we cant trust out Government agencies and like I said I really didnt write down previously in a strong enough sense that I too wouldnt see the scheme working. And yes I would be rather peeved if any of my personal data ended up with Insurance companies, as an example given previously!
 

ottar

LE
Is English YOUR first language?, get an adult to help your read this... "DNA evidence is presented with a probability factor, they will give a probability that the DNA evidence is that of the accused" ... I never said it would PROVE...P R O V E...read it again... PROVE... that the accused did it, just a probability,
No it doesn't, you dullard. All it proves is that some DNA, that is probably theirs, is present at the scene.

which if high enough and linked with other evidence is good enough for a court of law!
Well done. You've just found out the important bit: other evidence is required. It is that other evidence that is important. DNA is just there to support the other evidence. DNA is not for fishing trips or lazy policing. Not only would a universal DNA database be an affront to privacy and English judicial process, it would also be utterly useless.

Heres a fact for you matey...I do believe I wrote it before (get an adult to read my last post for you) I will write it in upper case just in case you miss it.... I DONT WATCH TV.... I LIVE IN CZ ITS ALL IN CZECH AND ITS FECKING SHOITE but you really do need to brush up on your knowledge of FORENSIC DNA..so perhaps you SHOULD start watching CSI
No, I don't think I do. I used to make use of DNA evidence, and am quite well versed in its workings.
p.s. You really shouldn't shout, it's not good for your blood pressure.
 
Are you lot still going on? PM each other your phone numbers, arrange a conference call or meet in a pub car park somewhere mutually acceptable to all of you. Then hold a rational argument, this is getting boring now.........zzz
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top