Broken britain

[Nate]

I read an interesting article the other day about the government trying to protect us.

They wanted to cut greenhouse gas and obesity, so they decided killing 30% of our Cows/Lambs would be a good idea. Less methane, less meat they thought. They went through all the motions about it with press releases, etc. But they forgot to mention it to Defra, who once they found out about it told them where they'd gone wrong and it was dropped immidiately.

How short sighted can the government be?

 

[Raven]

The public face is all about headlines. Actual policy is all about control and ill thought out schemes to make it appear that they are doing something other than lining them and their mates pockets.

 

[MYstIC G]

Why is the option there at all if we're not allowed to use it? :/

Why does the universe have to work on the basis that everything has to be strictly controlled to stop people being retarded? Nobody said you're not allowed to use it, just that you were being stupid and you were.

 

[ST^]

Why does the universe have to work on the basis that everything has to be strictly controlled to stop people being retarded? Nobody said you're not allowed to use it, just that you were being stupid and you were.

I don't think I was. I used the largest font to express the extremity of my disbelief. Probably more valid a reason to use the forbidden size 7 than you could come up with.

 

[MYstIC G]

Hmm, making things bigger to convey your point. That is a very similar trait to people who shout loudly to get their own way. Perhaps you should channel your frustration and disbelief into more productive things, like better constructed points in the discussion?

Oh and again nobody said you cannot use it, so saying things like "forbidden" just proves that you are being an idiot.

PS: oh look, underline adds emphasis without having to take up half the screen...

 

[Raven]

Its like writing in caps, it makes you look like a spaz.

 

[TdC]

But they forgot

hmm. I work for a large-ish multinational (in IT *cough* *cough* duh). We have excessive procedures in place to make sure that we never "forget" anything, therefore if I hear a government has forgotten something, to me that reads that they purposely did not do it. Correct me if I am wrong pls, I don't like thinking of governments this way

 

[Scouse]

I'm sorry, but what? Unless she drove there with like, 18 OAPs on the front bumper I'm nearly certain that's completely out of their rights o0

Yep Teeds. I've also noticed that none of the "there's nothing wrong" brigade have even acknowledged it...

 

[Nate]

hmm. I work for a large-ish multinational (in IT *cough* *cough* duh). We have excessive procedures in place to make sure that we never "forget" anything, therefore if I hear a government has forgotten something, to me that reads that they purposely did not do it. Correct me if I am wrong pls, I don't like thinking of governments this way

Read here for a full picture! BBC News - Whitehall turf war saves cows' hides

 

[Wazzerphuk]

What discussion - you are trying to stop anyone from discussing things unless they have personally suffered under them.

No I wasn't, hence why I initially asked "out of interest." It was out of interest, I wasn't basing any further debate on it, it was to move on from there, but you refused to answer and kicked up a fuss thinking you knew what I'd say next, when you had no clue.

There was no trolling, if you think that was trolling then you're poorly mistaken, although I can start trolling you if you want since you seem to want to be the victim of a troll attack so much you're making one up.

 

[Scouse]

OK then Waz. I've given you a specific example. Whaddaya think of it?

 

[TdC]

Read here for a full picture! BBC News - Whitehall turf war saves cows' hides

Other officials rang to emphasise that Mr Burnham was a meat-eater and not a vegetarian.

ffing lol o0

 

[Wazzerphuk]

OK then Waz. I've given you a specific example. Whaddaya think of it?

Wasn't asking you

 

[Scouse]

Wasn't asking you

Lol!

Meanie. C'mon. Or are you so blown away by the oppressiveness of it that you don't want to concede defeat?

 

[SilverHood]

Oh look, the first person convicted under Part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act...

A nut case maybe, but the police conceded he had no links to terrorism. But he was jailed for refusing to hand over the keys to decrypt his computer files. Despite promises the RIPA would ONLY be used for serious crime and and terrorism.

From reading the case details, the original case was dropped, but they still wanted access to his files. When he refused, he became a suspected terrorist or peado. He didn't hand over the keys... conviction.

Now tell me again that the freedom of the average person of Britain is not being eroded when a person can be banged up for not being charged with an offense.

 

[ST^]

Tell the whole story why don't you? The guy skipped bail multiple times, had traces of explosives found on his hand, was arrested for carrying a knife, moved house to avoid the police who were not finished with him, was stopped at customs with a rocket, applied for new passports under false pretence, owned a book on how to make a gun. I mean, jesus christ, I don't know he could have possibly garnered more police attention if he tried!

As I said, stuff from The Register doesn't really count. The police have the power to ask you to decrypt files for them. Knowing that it carries a sentence to refuse, why on earth would you?

 

[Embattle]

Oh look, the first person convicted under Part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act...

A nut case maybe, but the police conceded he had no links to terrorism. But he was jailed for refusing to hand over the keys to decrypt his computer files. Despite promises the RIPA would ONLY be used for serious crime and and terrorism.

From reading the case details, the original case was dropped, but they still wanted access to his files. When he refused, he became a suspected terrorist or peado. He didn't hand over the keys... conviction.

Now tell me again that the freedom of the average person of Britain is not being eroded when a person can be banged up for not being charged with an offense.

I did wonder how long it would take someone to quote this story from the The Register.

 

[SilverHood]

True, but when I learned the process of how the law worked, it went roughly like this:

You are under suspicion of a crime
You are arrested and accused of said crime
You go to court
Court finds you guilty or not guilty
Sentencing if guilty / released if not guilty


His case went something like like:
Under suspicion
Arrested
Charges dropped
Police still want access to files for a case where there that was dropped.
Charged with withholding information under RIPA
Guilty
Sentenced

Notice the disconnect here - the RIPA was used for a case that was dropped. So the guy is a nut case, the judge more or less said so. Being one is not against the law. My problem here is that by withholding information he was presumed guilty unless he proved his innocence. Yes, lock the guy up for carrying a knife, for missing bail and what not, but leave the anti terror legislation for terrorist related offenses, rather than scoring a +1 on their statistics.

Nazi Germany didn't become a police state overnight. Zimbabwe didn't become an oppressive regime as soon as Mugabe came to power. Small steps, insignificant to the majority people, until suddenly they found themselves living under the thumb of their government.

 

[ST^]

My problem here is that by withholding information he was presumed guilty unless he proved his innocence.

No, the withholding of evidence is what he was sentenced for.

 

[rynnor]

No, the withholding of evidence is what he was sentenced for.

Deniable Encryption is your friend in these cases - its the total nightmare scenario if done correctly - Deniable encryption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SilverHood]

No, the withholding of evidence is what he was sentenced for.

For which charges? "Uhm, we might charge you with some terrorism related offenses, but we need the contents on your encrypted files, because frankly, we have nothing".

I did wonder how long it would take someone to quote this story from the The Register.

Surprised no one had mentioned it either, seeing as I had to wait til I got home to write about it and I'm +5 GMT from most of you guys

As for not being allowed to quote the Register... it seems to be one of the few news outlets that actually takes notice of the legislation creep that's happening.

 

[ST^]

For which charges? "Uhm, we might charge you with some terrorism related offenses, but we need the contents on your encrypted files, because frankly, we have nothing".

Ahem. From the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, section 53.

53 Failure to comply with a notice

• (1) A person to whom a section 49 notice has been given is guilty of an offence if he knowingly fails, in accordance with the notice, to make the disclosure required by virtue of the giving of the notice.
• (2) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it.(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if—
  
  [*](a) sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
  [*](b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.​
• (4) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for that person to show—
  
  [*](a) that it was not reasonably practicable for him to make the disclosure required by virtue of the giving of the section 49 notice before the time by which he was required, in accordance with that notice, to make it; but
  [*](b) that he did make that disclosure as soon after that time as it was reasonably practicable for him to do so.​
• (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
  
  [*](a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both;
  [*](b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
  ​

 

[Embattle]

True, but when I learned the process of how the law worked, it went roughly like this:

You are under suspicion of a crime
You are arrested and accused of said crime
You go to court
Court finds you guilty or not guilty
Sentencing if guilty / released if not guilty


His case went something like like:
Under suspicion
Arrested
Charges dropped
Police still want access to files for a case where there that was dropped.
Charged with withholding information under RIPA
Guilty
Sentenced

Notice the disconnect here - the RIPA was used for a case that was dropped. So the guy is a nut case, the judge more or less said so. Being one is not against the law. My problem here is that by withholding information he was presumed guilty unless he proved his innocence. Yes, lock the guy up for carrying a knife, for missing bail and what not, but leave the anti terror legislation for terrorist related offenses, rather than scoring a +1 on their statistics.

Nazi Germany didn't become a police state overnight. Zimbabwe didn't become an oppressive regime as soon as Mugabe came to power. Small steps, insignificant to the majority people, until suddenly they found themselves living under the thumb of their government.

Sorry but this case is a poor example in my opinion and that is even without taking into account only one side of the story being heard and from someone who is keeping their identity hidden on a technology website.

The story had been on there for what 2 days, naturally creating hysteria from people commenting after probably doing no more that skim reading it. Although it did gain some comments that people couldn't see any thing wrong with this and to be totally honest nor do I.

I can't stand the way people try and link anything in this country to events such as the Nazis rise to power, quite frankly I tend to think it is little more than trying to create impact.

Also I have this feeling of people throwing stones at the greenhouse while standing in one blissfully unaware.

As for The Register what you actually mean is it suits your personal disposition.

 

[SilverHood]

I have no issues with the RIPA. But the the Government said it would be used only for terrorism and serious crime. The police admitted he was not a terrorist, just eccentric. He was also not a serious criminal. Why was he being charged under the RIPA?

 

[Scouse]

I have no issues with the RIPA. But the the Government said it would be used only for terrorism and serious crime. The police admitted he was not a terrorist, just eccentric. He was also not a serious criminal. Why was he being charged under the RIPA?

They won't answer this Silver....


Come on ST^. My example isn't quoted from the register and it directly affected a member of my family.

I'm challenging you* to tell me how it's OK.


*and Wazz


Edit: About the above posts: Quoting law is the argument of an intellectual midget. The law is, quite often, an ass (as has been demostrated many times). Considering we're debating the validity of the law, putting your hand up and quoting "but itz t3h rulez!!!1111" makes you an arse....

 

[ST^]

They won't answer this Silver....

...

Edit: About the above posts: Quoting law is the argument of an intellectual midget. The law is, quite often, an ass (as has been demostrated many times). Considering we're debating the validity of the law, putting your hand up and quoting "but itz t3h rulez!!!1111" makes you an arse....

Your edit is hilarious Noticing I'd already answered, you just had to try and save face. Unfortunately, you don't set the rules on how I debate, so telling me I can't quote the law while asking why he was charged under that law just isn't gonna fly.

Come on ST^. My example isn't quoted from the register and it directly affected a member of my family.

I'm challenging you* to tell me how it's OK.

Your mum received a letter? She must be absolutely devastated. I send her my best regards.

Seriously though, give us the whole story. People don't get asked that question for no reason.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Lol!

Meanie. C'mon. Or are you so blown away by the oppressiveness of it that you don't want to concede defeat?

Christ people here have a complete inability to read. I was asking him out of interest, which had affected him. Not you, not anyone else, and for no other reason than I was interested to see which of his (very specific) points had happened to him. No more.

 

[Scouse]

loads of self-serving shit that came as news to me, PLUS:

Seriously though, give us the whole story. People don't get asked that question for no reason.

I told you the whole story. Hey, what can I say. You're too young to understand, and a sheep. I'd feel sorry for you if you deserved it.

 

[ST^]

Yeah, I really believe that the police are sending letters to owners of random number plates, asking why they went somewhere...

 

[Scouse]

Yeah, I really believe that the police are sending letters to owners of random number plates, asking why they went somewhere...

That's why I called you a head-in-sand-er....

Aside from getting my mum to come round to your house and tell you herself, what can I do?