Bolitics The New Condem Government

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Good protein in peanut butter, but at least stick it on brown bread.

[blandy]

Lib Dems find spine

 

Nick Clegg has vetoed Theresa May's rewritten "web snooper's charter" plan, killing off the home secretary's last remaining hopes of getting any communications data legislation in the Queen's speech.

The Liberal Democrat leader told David Cameron and Theresa May on Wednesday that he could not support the home secretary's latest proposals to monitor internet and social media use because they were unworkable and disproportionate.

The decision provoked delight within his party and among privacy campaigners: "This is truly an immense moment for any liberal, and every Liberal Democrat," said Julian Huppert, the party's backbench home affairs spokesman.

"These plans were based on scant evidence, scaremongering and a disregard for our personal lives; treating everyone as a suspect and our online activity as 'fair game'," he said.

The announcement was also hailed by the party's president, Tim Farron.

Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, simply tweeted: "The snooper's charter is dead, long live Clegg."

May has fought hard for the legislation, designed to fill a growing gap in the ability of the police and security services to access records of the web and social media activity of serious criminals and terrorists.

The deputy prime minister sent the original legislation – the draft communications data bill – back to the drawing board after insisting it was first scrutinised by a committee MPs and peers.

The committee's withering verdict described it as "overkill", complained it "trampled on the privacy of British citizens" and said its cost estimates were "fanciful and misleading". They did, however, agree that new legislation was needed to plug the gap caused by rapid changes in technology.

The revised proposals tabled by May offered significant concessions but did not include movement on access to blogs or everyone's history of their use of websites or social media, or on requiring British phone and internet companies to intercept data from overseas providers. They proved insufficient to persuade Clegg to sign up to them.

Both parties campaigned on general election promises to roll back the surveillance state and May's proposed legislation did not form part of the coalition agreement, so Clegg's veto is not necessarily a coalition-breaker.

Clegg announced the decision on his weekly LBC radio phone-in programme: "There is work that clearly needs to be done on issues where I think most people would reasonably think you do need to keep up [with] the technology," he said. "[but] the full-scale approach of basically saying you're going to scoop up and hold huge amounts of data for instance, literally recording every website that you visit and everybody visits so you've got this great treasure trove of data which you can then dip into if you need to, I don't think the British public would support that, I don't think it's in many ways workable and I don't think it's necessarily proportionate."

He said a blanket record of websites visited and communications on social media is "not going to happen with Liberal Democrats in government" and referred to the necessity of obtaining a balance between security and liberty.

Clegg's only concession during the interview was that the government should look at whether there should be an IP address for every device, which police and security services have lobbied for. Further work is expected on how new legislation might be introduced to deal with the limited problem faced by the police in matching internet protocol addresses with individual mobile phones or computers.

The prime minister's spokesman was reluctant to be drawn on the developments, or whether legislation in this area would feature in the Queen's speech. He suggested discussions were ongoing, but appeared to acknowledge that a problem had developed. He said: "The reality of technological change has not gone away. These are sensitive issues around this and discussions are continuing on how progress is to be made."

[Chindie]

Schoolboy error Blandy, Nick Clegg said it, therefore it's a lie. The Snoopers act will be enacted inside a week

[coda]

Not sure this is the correct thread but anyhow, UKIP candidate Anna-Marie Crampton suspended over Holocaust comments

 

Holocaust means a sacrifice by fire. Only the Zionists could sacrifice their own in the gas chambers.

The Second World Wide War was engineered by the Zionist Jews and financed by the banksters to make the general public all over the world feel so guilty and outraged by the Holocaust that a treaty would be signed to create the State of Israel as we know it today.

 

Where do they find these people?

[peterms]

Schoolboy error Blandy, Nick Clegg said it, therefore it's a lie. The Snoopers act will be enacted inside a week

 

I see that nice Mr Obama was trying to pass a similar law at the same time, by coincidence.  But he got a bit impatient, and told the chaps to go ahead with bugging anyway.  After all, it's all in our own best interests.  And modern technology requires responses not anticipated in old laws.  And if people don't like what he's doing, they don't need to vote for him for, er a third term.  And if you're not guilty you've got nothing to hide.

 

By another strange coincidence, security forces in the UK, US and Canada have all been vigilant in protecting us from terrorists who would cause havoc.  Luckily the media have been on hand to record these actions, which would otherwise have gone unnoticed.  We must support the security forces in upholding the rule of law.  Well, parts of it.  This may mean trifling but necessary adjustments to our civil liberties.  Because only by giving up freedoms can we truly be free.

[snowychap]

Now I may be a bit pissed but I do believe that the 'week in parliament' programme has just said that the mentalists in the government have actually gone ahead with this 'Employee/Owner' status thingy (with some kind of 'safeguard' that sounded like a distance selling regulation).

[peterms]

That's right. http://www.employeebenefits.co.uk/benefits/share-schemes/governments-employee-ownership-proposal-passes/101878.article

I expect they were a bit pissed as well.

[villaajax]

They've actually passed that? What idiot is going to swap their employment rights for some shares? Thought it wouldn't surprise me if the nasty party's plan is to make this compulsory one day. 

 

Good thing they're going the right way about getting themselves kicked out of parliament in 2015.

[bickster]

Thing is, its fairly obvious that employers don't want it, nor do employees. Its a barking mad waste of money, our money, on something no-one wants

[snowychap]

...What idiot is going to swap their employment rights for some shares?...

What if they had no choice?

[bickster]

snowychap, on 27 Apr 2013 - 3:38 PM, said:

villaajax, on 27 Apr 2013 - 2:20 PM, said:

...What idiot is going to swap their employment rights for some shares?...

What if they had no choice?

[irony]Oh no, that can't happen [/irony]

[Dr_Pangloss]

In that case workers should just get together, start a fund and then short sell the shares they have 'gained'.

[villaajax]

 

...What idiot is going to swap their employment rights for some shares?...

What if they had no choice?

 

 

As I understand it is optional whether you choose to do this. Though as I said in the part you've missed out of the quote, it wouldn't surprise me if the Tory's tried to make this compulsory. Good thing they'll be out in 2 years time.

[snowychap]

As I understand it is optional whether you choose to do this.

As 'optional' as anything else that an employer would like to have as a condition of employment, perhaps.

If people need the work then they don't have much option about refusing a condition (it's not exactly two equal parties making a bargain in the vast majority of cases) and that's before one looks at mandation in terms of job seekers' agreements or sanctions applied for not taking a job.

It may well turn out to be nothing as the consultation came back that there wasn't much, if any, interest in these arrrangements on the part of employers, though.

Edited April 27, 2013 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

[villaajax]

Labour hold South Shields.

 

Lib Dems in 7th place.

 

LAB 12493

UKIP 5988

CON 2857

Ind 1331

Ind Soc 750

BNP 711

Lib Dem 352

Monster Raving Loony 197

Edited May 2, 2013 by villaajax

[snowychap]

Private landlords will be required to check the immigration status of their tenants.

 

 

[bickster]

Private landlords will be required to check the immigration status of their tenants.

 

Yep another in the continuing trend of legislation where business is being forced to do the governments job, for free

The government fails to stop illegal immigrants entering the country but it'll make business and private individuals responsible for its own failure

[villaajax]

"Royal Mail for sale. Queen's head privatised."

[bickster]

"Royal Mail for sale.

Bad idea

Queen's head privatised."

Good idea