MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Britain sleepwalking into becoming a surveillance state, wars MP Hubert
Britain is sleepwalking into becoming a surveillance state, the like of which has never been seen before in peacetime Britain, MPs have been told. Opening a packed Westminster Hall debate on intelligence and the security services, Liberal Democrat MP Julian Huppert (Cambridge) said there were serious questions to be asked about the extent and scale of intelligence agencies’ activities. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesEven their own politicians now are warning that the UK has become an undemocratic police state (euphimism used here “surveillance state”, but whatever you call it as I have said many a time before, the UK is already one), and...
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 03:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Absolute no show from the brits here.
Well, they deserve then whats coming to them.
Hey Tobias.
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 08:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0When a serious politicians says it, then I'll be more inclined to believe it.
This guy is just desperate for some publicity.
In the meantime, why don't you tell us just how great you are? ROFLMFAO
Police state!
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good one, lmao.
What like Arrogatina you mean?
Green Ford Falcons, nightly visits to the naval engineering school and unscheduled one way helicopter trips over the channel!!!
@1 This may come as something of a surprise to you but, here in Britain, many people like to go to bed, and sleep, at night. There's a 3-hour time difference between the UK and argieland. And you are, as usual, behind. I can do without getting out of bed before 9.00am. So you'll have to wait. It's not as though proper people can't wait to read your drivel. Actually, waiting until tomorrow to read your “offering” wouldn't bother me. I could actually wait until next week without a problem. Do you think you could manage proper spelling and punctuation? “Euphemism”, “what's”. Grammar could also be improved. Have you read the comment @3? Here, in a proper country, there are no police visits in the middle of the night. Even if there were, they can be delayed by calling out the proper password. The people are constantly on guard against unjustified surveillance. The courts support them and government authorities actually obey the courts. Don't you wish it was like that in argieland? And judges really are independent. Even the government obeys them. We don't find it necessary to release thugs from prison to boost the numbers at the head of state's rallies. “Ministers” like Timerman, Puricelli, Lorenzino wouldn't last a month. Most British police are unarmed. Why are most argie police armed? Love those cameras helping to keep people safe. Especially now that “local government” has been warned that the cameras can't be used for revenue-raising purposes. I even have cameras in my car to maintain my own personal surveillance around me. Soon, there will be CCTV cameras around my house. If some criminal, or even over-enthusiastic “police”, do naughties, there will be video records. Walk up the drive, hop over the front wall, cross the boundary from the next property, and everywhere inside, it will all be covered.
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh! dio...
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0I cannot understand how poor Britons can resist all this oppression and humiliation.
No freedom of press, no liberties like we enjoy in the west, no economy, no jobs and no hope.
Sad really sad indeed...
What times the next junta coming along?
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0@5 we in the west value our freedom, we do not need to have bars and shutters on our windows to keep the criminals out. We use survelliance, cctv so if by any chance someone encroaches on our space it is recorded. Spain and Italy have bars and shutters, but you are descended from the Lain countries No?
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sure Cronie...
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Merkel thought USA used their survelliance to something else entirely too.
Bugging mobiles, screening entire cities, industrial spying...
All justifiable, of course...
You'd be amazed how much freedom bars gives you in comparison...
The irony of most of these comments is not lost on me. But be careful what you wish for. Don't make this about Argentina and the “disappeared” as if something of this kind could never happen in good old civilized Britain. Tyrants know no political borders, and so while you are laughing and scoffing at the possibility, as the MP says, Britain could simply “sleepwalk” into a surveillance state. Just don't be too cocksure he is a joke. Maybe the joke will be on you. It surre has been on the Ame3rican people who believed the “hopie-changie thing” Obama promised and then miserably failed to deliver. Mr Cameron is not far behind him, as he has already hinted at some sort of suspension of freedom of the press. Read the news of the past week.
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@9 Fbear
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It appears you know very little about the UK, it's laws, it's Constitution and it's people.
There is also no plans to suspend the 'freedom of the press' which would be unconstitutional in the UK.
Your ignorance regarding the recent Royal Charter is obvious. The Press in the UK have had over a decade (since they caused the death of Princess Diana in fact) to prove that they could regulate themselves. Not only did they fail to do this, they actually became worse, and broke the law and numerous occasions. Nothing they did was in the public interest.
The public interest is an important concept in the UK.
So, for instance, if the press were to print an incorrect story about you - one with the potential to damage your reputation, your business and your family - they would close ranks forcing the person libeled to fight for justice through the courts. This is an expensive thing to do, and could take years.
Even J.K. Rowling - who is a multi-millionaire - had a tough time fighting for justice through the courts, when the press libeled her
Most people can't afford to fight these big multinationals, so the press have been getting away with libel for years.
The charter allows a complainant to take the press to an INDEPENDENT review body, who can then give a balanced unbiased judgement on the matter at hand. If found in the wrong, the press would then have to print a retraction and payout a sum in damages.
This is far cheaper, and fairer for the complainant.
And THAT is what the press doesn't want. They have interpreted 'freedom of the press' to mean they have 'carte blanche' to say and do whatever they like, when it actually means free from governmental interference.
The press in the UK will remain free. But now they are being forced to be fair too.
“”“No freedom of press, no liberties like we enjoy in the west, no economy, no jobs and no hope.”“””
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0talking about argentina again eh?
freedom of press? (clarin smashed, pro-opposition press neutered - check)
no liberties like we enjoy (going on holiday any time soon? got any restrictions on moving money about? need to prove what you're spending cash on?)
no economy (IMF, fake inflation figures, historical debtor of the worst degree)
no hope (anybody see the argentine flag over Stanley? no hope indeed..)
lions and tigers and bears, oh my.
@11
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The difference is, the Argentinian government is doing all this for the good of the it's citizens.
Bull, it's doing it to stop them criticising their policies, you know it, I know and anyone with half a brain cell know it!
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's got sfa to do with the Argentine people and everything to do with the cult of the Kirchners!
Of course all developed countries are developing the capacity to become total surveillance states. The USA and the UK are most developed in the Western world and, because Russia and China are so far behind in the surveillance structures of its own people, these Western countries are those that spy most on their own people. The UK more than the USA, simply because of its size and population densities.
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To say that the UK 'RISKS becoming a surveillance state' is political-speak;
the UK has been a total surveillance state for some many years - almost since the beginning of the electronic communications era.
Geoff
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sometimes I agree with you, this time I don't.
I don't think that the amount of surveillance is an indication of any development other than the one into totalitarianism...
News flash, the US and the UK are already surveillance states.
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stevie #15.
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If 'totalitarianism' means control by a one party state, this is not the UK.
If 'totalitarianism' means control by a dictator, this is not the UK.
If 'only totalitarianism' can operate with a surveillance society, then I disagree with you. Democracies, pseudo-democracies and many other types of structures can operate surveillance societies - the truth of this is out there for all to see.
Its all down to how they package it.
A surveillance society can 'justified' as protection against internal insurrection, as protection against external 'terrorism', as protection against 'black blocs'/insurgents/anarchists, etc, as protection of the state apparatus, as protection against other religions/sects/races, even as 'health and safety'! ...
The powers that hold sway in any developed nation use surveillance primarily to control their own masses, *because they can*;
but also - massively - to gain advantage over other nations, both legally and illegally (hence Snowden, etc).
Easily and largely digitally ... they do it ... because they can.
17)
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What I think is that Democracy is something that you have to defend and practice every day. That you may be feeling safe and living in a democracy now doesn’t mean you are assured to do so in the future. When you surrender to the State the power of unlimited information over your own life pretty much since you start of your lap top in the morning to check the news and weather, since you go out to the streets and you are being recorded on CCTv, use your mobile to call your contacts, etc once you give all that away its very easy to them scrutinize you and hold absolutely anything of that against you in a event you become the enemy.
No 10, read recent news of Cameron's statements, maybe something to do with the Official Secrets Act . . . Constitution? America has one too, but look at what the recent regimes there have done to erode its provisions. Is Britain safe from the same situation? I think not. I am not ignorant orf what the paper SAYS. Neither am I ignorant of what the government wishes to practice, contrary to the paper. Or if you prefr, the parchment, or the sheepskin or whatever you wish to say to insult my intelligence
Nov 02nd, 2013 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ golfcronie
Nov 03rd, 2013 - 03:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hey and you are????
Postcode and Mosque please?
Only registered Mohammeds are allowing to ask question to me.
Thank you
@19 Fbear
Nov 03rd, 2013 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0You don't understand the British Constitution. That much is obvious, very obvious.
The UK isn't the USA. We have far more safeguards in place to prevent any attempt to circumnavigate the constitution. The British Constitution is interwoven into every law, establishment and the fabric of the British way of life. It isn't a written down like the US one is, and because it is so interwoven through every part of British society, it cannot just be changed on a whim, it takes decades to change it. A government only lasts 5 years - so as you can see - any change could be halted or amended by subsequent governments. Only when a change has cross party support, can a change to the Constitution happen - but it still takes decades, because every aspect of the change has to be tested against British law, to ensure that it doesn't breach that law.
Added to that is the fact that Her Majesty The Queen is a safety net that prevents any politician from gaining ultimate power.
You still don't appear to have understood the Royal Charter. It has nothing to do with curbing the freedom of the press.
So you either don't understand the principle of freedom of the press, or you don't understand the Royal Charter and what it's actually for.
By the way, I wasn't insulting your intelligence. Your post showed that you didn't understand what the Royal Charter was about, or about the incidents that led up to the Charter being issued in the 1st place. Or the fact that the Charter has full public support - public support - that is something that is very important in a democracy, wouldn't you say?
Whereas the press have lost public support and public confidence that they could police themselves.
Lep
Nov 03rd, 2013 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's easily the most ridiculous attempt on defending the restriction of the freedom of press.
“Our constitution, or lack of, is so intricate, it would take at least 10 years to change it.”
Hilarious!!
@22 Stevie
Nov 03rd, 2013 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have deliberately misinterpreted what I said.
It is difficult to change the UK Constitution - hence why freedom of the press isn't under attack here.
Also it doesn't take 10 years - the wording I used was DECADES - that would be more than 10 years (idiot).
Unlike countries like your beloved master, Argentina, the UK Constitution cannot be altered on the whim of a politican, and any changes cannot be applied retrospectively.
I wonder if you have actually read the Royal Charter? It is available online.
But I doubt it, as it would blow all your 'little' fantasies out of the water.
The press in the UK is still free from government interference - unlike Argentina - where many of them are mouthpieces for CFK and the others are under attack from her. The press in the UK now have to behave more responsibly - and the Royal Charter isn't even mandatory - it's voluntary participation. Coming from a psuedo-dictatorship as you do, Stevie, you probably don't understand the word 'choice'.
The only alteration here, as I alluded to in my earlier posts, is the way COMPLAINTS by the PUBLIC against the Press are handled.
The Press can not be trusted to police themselves regarding these complaints, so an independent (that means free of government control and free of press control) committee can hear these complaints. If they find in favour of the plantiff, they can then call on that particular newspaper (or whatever) to pay compensation and/or print a retraction.
So despite all your little fantasies and attempts to alter the meaning of my words, it comes down to the fact that the UK press is still a free press, and your desperation to try and discredit the Charter is so obvious it can be seen from Mars.
By the way, just how much is La Campora paying you these days?
So Lep, your “constitution” is selective, convenient and utterly inflexible, you say?
Nov 03rd, 2013 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hahahahaha
I've had my socks on longer than you have a constitution!!!!
Nov 03rd, 2013 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@24 Stevie
Nov 03rd, 2013 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where did I say any of that?
I didn't. You made that up.
Oh Constitution isn't inflexible, we just don't allow it to be changed on the whim of the current politician in power. Nowhere did I say that the constitution of the UK was selective. Again this is you making it up, neither is the UK constitution convenient.
It is the foundation of the UK. Every law and policy is based upon it. That is why it can't just be changed on a whim. That is why the people of the United Kingdom are protected from dictatorship.
Your comments continue to smack of desperation, and perhaps a little jealousy too. LOL
Whatever La Campora are paying you, it's obviously too much.
@LEPWrong
Nov 03rd, 2013 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0United Kingdom has not a constitution can you provide me a link to the copy of such document?
Don’t bother because you don’t have.
But what you have now are “Sukuks” issued under Sharia Law thanks To CaMoron.
It is not amazing???....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10410467/Britain-to-become-first-non-Muslim-country-to-launch-sharia-bond.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10410467/Britain-to-become-first-non-Muslim-country-to-launch-sharia-bond.html
The UK has an unwritten constitution, however if plank likes to read documents, he can start with the one signed in June 1215 and work is way up.
Nov 03rd, 2013 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Should keep him busy for a while.
The powers that hold sway in any developed nation use surveillance - massively - to gain advantage over other nations, both legally and illegally (hence Snowden, etc). #17
Nov 03rd, 2013 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Germany is to push for tough data protection controls to be included in the proposed EU-US free trade pact in the latest sign of the growing impact of the outrage triggered by Washington’s mass surveillance and concerns about industrial espionage'.
FT, 3 Nov. 2013
Why should the Europeans have anything to do with the thieving US Americans, when their whole commercial edifice is built on the foundations of total industrial espionage?
And you lot say Uruguay is under Argentinas foot. Look at Europe, spied on at every level, by their own governments as by foreign ones. And nobody can do a shite...
Nov 03rd, 2013 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@reality check
Nov 04th, 2013 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes sure I’m reading the this part...
Family Law Sharia Law
Cases involving violations of some religious duties, lawsuits over property and business disputes, and family law all came before the kadis. Most of these cases would be considered civil law matters in Western courts today.
Family law always made up an important part of the Sharia. Below are some features of family law in the classic Sharia that would guide the kadi in making his decisions.
Usually, an individual became an adult at puberty.
A man could marry up to four wives at once.
A wife could refuse to accompany her husband on journeys.
The support of an abandoned infant was a public responsibility.
A wife had the right to food, clothing, housing, and a marriage gift from her husband.
When the owner of a female slave acknowledged her child as his own, the child became free. The child's mother became free when the owner died.
In an inheritance, a brother took twice the amount as his sister. (The brother also had financial responsibility for his sister.)
A husband could dissolve a marriage by repudiating his wife three times.
A wife could return her dowry to her husband for a divorce. She could also get a decree from a kadi ending the marriage if her husband mistreated, deserted, or failed to support her.
After a divorce, the mother usually had the right of custody of her young children.
Criminal Law
The classic Sharia identified the most serious crimes as those mentioned in the Koran. These were considered sins against Allah and carried mandatory punishments. Some of these crimes and punishments were:
adultery: death by stoning.
highway robbery: execution; crucifixion; exile; imprisonment; or right hand and left foot cut off.
theft: right hand cut off (second offense: left foot cut off; imprisonment for further offenses).
slander: 80 lashes
drinking wine or any other intoxicant: 80 lashes.
Officials of the caliph carried
The most effective, and oppressive, form of surveillance IMO was the kind practised by the former Soviet Union and it's Warsaw Pact allies, as well as countries like Cuba.
Nov 04th, 2013 - 05:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0It was a kind of self-surveillance where people felt they were being watched even if they weren't, reinforced by informers in every apartment block and workplace.
Julian Huppert is right to raise these concerns. The balance between security and the right of citizens to their privacy is something we should always be aware of.
Curtailing the barbarities of Sharia 'Law' is one thing ...
Nov 04th, 2013 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0... the British are only just getting round to *thinking about stopping*
Female Genital Mutilation, a practice outlawed in the UK since 1985 - but still without a single conviction.
'66,000 women in Britain with 20,00 'in the pipeline''
[http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/19/betty-makoni-the-campaigner-challenging-female-genital-mutilation-in-britain-4048574/]
[Not a historic indigenous problem, but many thousands of immigrants and born-of-immigrants get their children 'done']
[And don't think it doesn't happen where you are]
Dont worry Britons,
Nov 04th, 2013 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0all human/animals are under listening /you and i..all of us/not only you.!
'Snowden has done us all a favour.
Nov 04th, 2013 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For a whole generation, America is coming to stand for Big Brother.
The damage to US soft power should not be overlooked.'
Financial Times, Monday, 4 November
@8
Nov 04th, 2013 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you have nothing to fear , no problem, wait until the Chinese come, how do you think they know so much. Everyone does industrial espionage, be foolish not to. If you used the same technique in Uruguay you would be better off, you could find out where the corruption is, as if we don't already know.
If you do it, you ARE corrupt...
Nov 04th, 2013 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@20
Nov 04th, 2013 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lat 53.744013 long 2.024359 Grid Ref SD 984275 Post Code HX7 6DU
If you google earth you will see the mosque.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!