Really? Yet you accept that no govt, or agency, now or in the future will abuse the power of tracking us all to make up new rules because it suits them, not the public at large? Wow.
Don't read the guardian, they are controlling your mind and trying to push you away from shopping at tesco in favour of Morrisons. Perhaps the guardian are part of Morrisons and they are selling mind controlling potatoes. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!
That sexist angry post has been used against you, you will now be bombarded with adverts for spa days and scented candles..... Oh wait, I have a scented candle burning right now. Noooooooooooo it's happening
Cant see the fuss myself , there's a lot of bleaters here , are you worried ?, really ! will you go and live up a mountain with no outside comms , line the inside of your cabin with tin foil , if not then stop pissing your panties . How many members on this site 2000 , I don't know , bet Rob and Matt do, they are hovering up your data as you type , get a grip how many here will have a knock at the door , you bunch of hypochondriacs, Hang on lets see if I'm banged up by tomorrow , Petrol Bomb , behead , bomb America , lynch Cameron and rape his wife............................................................................ Waiting................................... Waiting .
Yes, I would rather people were killed on the streets of London than our remaining civil liberties were thrown away. Shit happens - that's the price of freedom. Risk is inherent to living a meaningful life in a tolerable and tolerant society. I'm frankly shocked at the number of bikers here who seem ready to throw away fundamental civil and political rights - after all the "if it would save one life, surely it is worthwhile" argument is used by the anti-speed, anti-bike brigade all the time. "If it would prevent people being killed on the streets of London" would the logic not also follow that we should ban all the nasty dangerous motorbikes, oh, and the bicycles too, oh and stop anyone driving a car, or drinking alcohol, or eating chips, or owning knives and hammers etc etc Modern anti-terrorism laws are ludicrously broad - lots of vague "possession of an article that might one day prove handy to terrorists" BS offences, that could arguably be used to jail someone for possession of, oh, a London A-Z map (after all, that shows the location of tempting terrorist targets such as the Houses of Parliament, Scotland Yard, etc). Online privacy isn't just for terrorists and criminals - it's for teenagers who want to look up information about e.g. contraception that their parents would disapprove of, or help about mental illness, or advice for those being abused, or simply job hunting, or debating unpopular political views, or carrying out financial transactions, or exploring one's sexuality.
I'd punch the copper for chewing gum in a chav type way . How rude. He should not be chewing gum while addressing a member of the public. He should be sacked
Filming iconic buildings, innit? Bound to be terrorism caught up in there somewhere. Is there a law against filming iconic buildings? Well, there you go. This is what happens when you hand over civil liberties to the authorities. They are just bound to abuse them.
You make a compelling argument but civil rights apply to everyone. Even Art Students. It's Political Correctness gone mad!
