[UK] General Election 2017 Superthread

[Calladan]

Theresa May says the internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terror attack

Fuck that in the eye with a bag of hammers.

Not a bad idea. The idiots who run social media sites should be forced to hand over information about terror suspects and those under investigation.

And porn should be banned.

But then what about people who *might be" suspected of terror, but the government has no proof. Or what about people the government want to keep an eye on, even though they have no evidence yet that they are a danger? Or people who have expressed views that *could* be considered suspect, but also could be considered views that a lot of people hold?

We have warrants, and the rule of law, for a reason. It's to prevent massive government over-reach and the prevention of what can literally be described as a police state.

[Calladan]

Also, when Corbyn claimed that the reason behind the terrorist attacks was the UK's interference in other countries, the media painted him as a selfish politician using the terrorist attacks as a political football. How come we're not seeing the same being said of May now that she is using the London Bridge attacks to advance her own policies?

Because Corbyn is a threat to national security. Cameron said so!!!

(sarcasm)

[Chestaan]

Also, when Corbyn claimed that the reason behind the terrorist attacks was the UK's interference in other countries, the media painted him as a selfish politician using the terrorist attacks as a political football. How come we're not seeing the same being said of May now that she is using the London Bridge attacks to advance her own policies?

I mean we are, Owen Jones was screeching about it just earlier.

Isn't Owen Jones one of the more leftwing commentators? I was more talking about the media at large, which turned on Corbyn when he made his comments about the Manchester attacks.

[Olerand]

Other than porn, which is a very peculiar obessession of the Tory party in the U.K., she is not proposing anything unreasonable or beyond the norm of demands that Europe has been making for the past few years now.

I don't agree with any government deciding that they should get to erode civil liberties without giving extraordinary evidence showing it will actually help, whether it's European governments or my own. It just so happens I don't even remotely trust the Tories, not one little bit, and they're going to have to work much harder than this to convince me it's anything less than an authoritarian power grab.

Also, when Corbyn claimed that the reason behind the terrorist attacks was the UK's interference in other countries, the media painted him as a selfish politician using the terrorist attacks as a political football. How come we're not seeing the same being said of May now that she is using the London Bridge attacks to advance her own policies?

Because the Murdoch media knows Corbyn won't give them the time of day, never mind secret dinners and special meetings.

What is with Anglos and this phobia of the State? What are the Tories going to do with these powers that is so nefarious, or Labour if it is in power, or the Lib-Dems (God forbid)?

These demands are reasonable, and increasingly necessary for public safety.

[Olerand]

Also, when Corbyn claimed that the reason behind the terrorist attacks was the UK's interference in other countries, the media painted him as a selfish politician using the terrorist attacks as a political football. How come we're not seeing the same being said of May now that she is using the London Bridge attacks to advance her own policies?

Because he blamed the U.K. for inciting terrorism against itself. May isn't.

Quite a few people, understandably, are not open to the idea that they themselves "incited" the Manchester attack.

[Great Nepal]

It has nothing to do with social media conglomerates, it has to do with user's privacy. Only way for government to access this information from social media companies is for there to be a weakness in the system which can be exploited by anyone, including the government themselves.

Or by those companies complying with demands from authorities. To take down tweets, open up Facebook accounts, etc.

Not that hard really. We're far ahead of you on this front in France, and we're (debatably I guess for some) not a dictatorship yet.

Companies do comply with legal demands; if the government wants private information about someone located behind password, they damn well be able to produce at least a warrant from a judge demanding it.

[Nova Stephania]

I don't agree with any government deciding that they should get to erode civil liberties without giving extraordinary evidence showing it will actually help, whether it's European governments or my own. It just so happens I don't even remotely trust the Tories, not one little bit, and they're going to have to work much harder than this to convince me it's anything less than an authoritarian power grab.


Because the Murdoch media knows Corbyn won't give them the time of day, never mind secret dinners and special meetings.

What is with Anglos and this phobia of the State? What are the Tories going to do with these powers that is so nefarious, or Labour if it is in power, or the Lib-Dems (God forbid)?

They won't tell us, that's precisely one reason a lot of us need convincing. If they want powers like these they have to lay out in clear terms exactly what those powers are, what the limitations on them are, what sort of oversight will be preventing them from abusing those powers, and what sort of recourse is available to the public to protect ourselves from abuses of those powers. If you ask these things though you're just some kind of loony and terrorist appeaser.

These demands are reasonable, and increasingly necessary for public safety.

When the government makes that case, or even when you make that case, maybe I will be more willing to consider it. Just claiming it over and over doesn't make it so.

Also, when Corbyn claimed that the reason behind the terrorist attacks was the UK's interference in other countries, the media painted him as a selfish politician using the terrorist attacks as a political football. How come we're not seeing the same being said of May now that she is using the London Bridge attacks to advance her own policies?

Because he blamed the U.K. for inciting terrorism against itself. May isn't.

Quite a few people, understandably, are not open to the idea that they themselves "incited" the Manchester attack.

I am a Mancunian myself and proud. If Corbyn was saying "you can't complain about your kids being blown up because you're bombing other countries" I'd be outraged, but all he's saying is that our foreign policy might be contributing to radicalisation. It seems quite sensible to me but I guess again I'm just a loony terrorist appeaser for saying so.

[Chestaan]

Also, when Corbyn claimed that the reason behind the terrorist attacks was the UK's interference in other countries, the media painted him as a selfish politician using the terrorist attacks as a political football. How come we're not seeing the same being said of May now that she is using the London Bridge attacks to advance her own policies?

Because he blamed the U.K. for inciting terrorism against itself. May isn't.

Quite a few people, understandably, are not open to the idea that they themselves "incited" the Manchester attack.

UK foreign policy =/= UK citizens. And in any case, it doesn't seem to have hurt his polling numbers.

[Fetlar]

Not a bad idea. The idiots who run social media sites should be forced to hand over information about terror suspects and those under investigation.

And porn should be banned.

Heard it here first guys, porn causes terrorism!

Did I actually say that?

Nope, no I didn't

[Olerand]

Or by those companies complying with demands from authorities. To take down tweets, open up Facebook accounts, etc.

Not that hard really. We're far ahead of you on this front in France, and we're (debatably I guess for some) not a dictatorship yet.

Companies do comply with legal demands; if the government wants private information about someone located behind password, they damn well be able to produce at least a warrant from a judge demanding it.

Oftentimes immediately after an attack, while the manhunt or searching process are still nascent and ongoing, governments will not be able to acquire warrants. But they do have a necessity to access someone's WhatsApp or Telegram info.

I don't expect you to understand, we have a very different understanding of public power and authority.

[The Archregimancy]

Someone said, if you give up freedom for security, you will end up without both. I can't remember who did that quote, but it is true.

I believe you're misremembering the Benjamin Franklin quote 'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety'.

While it's an attractive enough quote, it's perhaps worth pointing out that 'liberty' didn't necessarily mean quite the same thing in the 17th through early 19th centuries as it does now. See, among plenty of other examples, Simon Bolivar's Bolivarian constitution of 1826 (where the people's liberties were to be guaranteed by a president for life who appointed his own successor) and Charles I's scaffold speech of 1649:

For the King the Laws of the land will clearly instruct you for that; therefore, because it concerns my own particular, I only give you a touch of it.

For the people, and truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as any body whomsoever. But I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having of government. Those Laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in government, sirs. That is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things, and therefore until they do that, I mean, that you do put the people in that liberty as I say, certainly they will never enjoy themselves.

Sirs, it was for this that now I am come here. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the power of the sword, I needed not to have come here. And therefore I tell you, and I pray God it be not laid to your charge, that I am the martyr of the people.

So I wouldn't automatically assume that Franklin was necessarily defending 'liberty' in the sense of civil liberties as we understand them within a 21st-century liberal democracy.

[Great Nepal]

Companies do comply with legal demands; if the government wants private information about someone located behind password, they damn well be able to produce at least a warrant from a judge demanding it.

Oftentimes immediately after an attack, while the manhunt or searching process are still nascent and ongoing, governments will not be able to acquire warrants. But they do have a necessity to access someone's WhatsApp or Telegram info.

I don't expect you to understand, we have a very different understanding of public power and authority.

Tough shit, if you can't demonstrate to an independent party that you need to violate someone's privacy, you don't get to do it. It'd be very convenient if police could search your house just because they feel like it with zero oversight, I mean you might be a criminal who needs to be immediately arrested and evidence could be hidden in your house - and yet we still prohibit such actions.

I don't expect you to understand either, you trust the benevolence and competence of government far too much.

[Olerand]

What is with Anglos and this phobia of the State? What are the Tories going to do with these powers that is so nefarious, or Labour if it is in power, or the Lib-Dems (God forbid)?

They won't tell us, that's precisely one reason a lot of us need convincing. If they want powers like these they have to lay out in clear terms exactly what those powers are, what the limitations on them are, what sort of oversight will be preventing them from abusing those powers, and what sort of recourse is available to the public to protect ourselves from abuses of those powers. If you ask these things though you're just some kind of loony and terrorist appeaser.

These demands are reasonable, and increasingly necessary for public safety.

When the government makes that case, or even when you make that case, maybe I will be more willing to consider it. Just claiming it over and over doesn't make it so.

Because he blamed the U.K. for inciting terrorism against itself. May isn't.

Quite a few people, understandably, are not open to the idea that they themselves "incited" the Manchester attack.

I am a Mancunian myself and proud. If Corbyn was saying "you can't complain about your kids being blown up because you're bombing other countries" I'd be outraged, but all he's saying is that our foreign policy might be contributing to radicalisation. It seems quite sensible to me but I guess again I'm just a loony terrorist appeaser for saying so.

And you will know when this process becomes more concrete.

And many people will not make the distinction between a criticism of UK foreign policy, and criticism of the UK (and thus them) itself.

Because he blamed the U.K. for inciting terrorism against itself. May isn't.

Quite a few people, understandably, are not open to the idea that they themselves "incited" the Manchester attack.

UK foreign policy =/= UK citizens. And in any case, it doesn't seem to have hurt his polling numbers.

Whether it has or hasn't I don't know. But it was an issue becomes most people do not make this distinction when one criticizes their country, particularly on such an emotional and polemical topic, and Corbyn knew that, and so do you.

Oftentimes immediately after an attack, while the manhunt or searching process are still nascent and ongoing, governments will not be able to acquire warrants. But they do have a necessity to access someone's WhatsApp or Telegram info.

I don't expect you to understand, we have a very different understanding of public power and authority.

Tough shit, if you can't demonstrate to an independent party that you need to violate someone's privacy, you don't get to do it. It'd be very convenient if police could search your house just because they feel like it with zero oversight, I mean you might be a criminal who needs to be immediately arrested and evidence could be hidden in your house - and yet we still prohibit such actions.

I don't expect you to understand either, you trust the benevolence and competence of government far too much.

I'm sure the police have better things to do.

[Bakery Hill]

Someone said, if you give up freedom for security, you will end up without both. I can't remember who did that quote, but it is true. Watching peoples actions on the internet is a path you don't want to go on.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Wonder how much liberty the Loyalists had during the revolution.

[Great Nepal]

I'm sure the police have better things to do.

Exactly what a criminal mastermind looking to throw people off their sent would say; obviously we need to search all your possessions, physical and digital, with zero oversight right away.

[Nova Stephania]

They won't tell us, that's precisely one reason a lot of us need convincing. If they want powers like these they have to lay out in clear terms exactly what those powers are, what the limitations on them are, what sort of oversight will be preventing them from abusing those powers, and what sort of recourse is available to the public to protect ourselves from abuses of those powers. If you ask these things though you're just some kind of loony and terrorist appeaser.

When the government makes that case, or even when you make that case, maybe I will be more willing to consider it. Just claiming it over and over doesn't make it so.

And you will know when this process becomes more concrete.

Considering the Tories have already tried to ram through various versions of the so-called 'Snoopers Charter' since 2010 and have never shown remotely any interest in answering any of these questions seriously, I am inclined to believe it when I see it. I'm certainly not just going to take their or your word for it and give them a blank cheque.

I am a Mancunian myself and proud. If Corbyn was saying "you can't complain about your kids being blown up because you're bombing other countries" I'd be outraged, but all he's saying is that our foreign policy might be contributing to radicalisation. It seems quite sensible to me but I guess again I'm just a loony terrorist appeaser for saying so.

And many people will not make the distinction between a criticism of UK foreign policy, and criticism of the UK (and thus them) itself.

That is their problem. Corbyn made his point quite clearly, if any British person takes criticism of foreign policy as some kind of personal attack on them I would say they need a word with themself.

[Chestaan]

UK foreign policy =/= UK citizens. And in any case, it doesn't seem to have hurt his polling numbers.

Whether it has or hasn't I don't know. But it was an issue becomes most people do not make this distinction when one criticizes their country, particularly on such an emotional and polemical topic, and Corbyn knew that, and so do you.

What absolute rubbish. Any sound minded person can tell the difference between the actions of the state and the actions of the individual. Just because the UK invaded Iraq does not mean that we should blame every citizen of the UK for this. The distinction is an easy one to make and apparently the people of the UK understand this, as Corbyn hasn't lost support for his actions.

And your idea that the state should be immune from criticism when its actions come back to bite it in the arse is disgustingly anti-democratic.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

I don't agree with any government deciding that they should get to erode civil liberties without giving extraordinary evidence showing it will actually help, whether it's European governments or my own. It just so happens I don't even remotely trust the Tories, not one little bit, and they're going to have to work much harder than this to convince me it's anything less than an authoritarian power grab.


Because the Murdoch media knows Corbyn won't give them the time of day, never mind secret dinners and special meetings.

What is with Anglos and this phobia of the State? What are the Tories going to do with these powers that is so nefarious, or Labour if it is in power, or the Lib-Dems (God forbid)?

These demands are reasonable, and increasingly necessary for public safety.

The state caused this problem with its policy of Muslim colonisation of the UK, and these powers, which will be sold as intended to protect people from Muslim colonists, will be used to suppress dissent from that policy. Everything that strengthens the state makes the situation worse because the state caused the situation.

The democratic state used to suck because it was a co-op which 10,000 cleaning ladies mismanage by outvoting the 100 accountants and engineers at the annual general meeting, and now it sucks because it's 100 professional manipulators using 10,000 cleaning ladies to outvote the 100 accountants and engineers. If the UK were run for a profit by just people with a clue, there's no way it would have adopted a policy of importing millions of IQ 90 dependants who are culturally and ideologically incompatible with the existing population.

Did you ever play some game like Civilisation 3? Imagine there was a policy that is like "MINUS 100 MONEY, PLUS 10 DISORDER". Would you click it? The state can't damn well stop clicking it.

[Fetlar]

Some are calling for the election to be postponed.

[Dooom35796821595]

Some are calling for the election to be postponed.

Not a chance in hell. If we do, then the terrorists win!

[Olerand]

I'm sure the police have better things to do.

Exactly what a criminal mastermind looking to throw people off their sent would say; obviously we need to search all your possessions, physical and digital, with zero oversight right away.

Alright, I anxiously await the RAID (France's elite policing units) raid of my house, we've been in a state of emergency for quite some time now, so if our State wants to turn dictatorial, there's no better time than now.

And you will know when this process becomes more concrete.

Considering the Tories have already tried to ram through various versions of the so-called 'Snoopers Charter' since 2010 and have never shown remotely any interest in answering any of these questions seriously, I am inclined to believe it when I see it. I'm certainly not just going to take their or your word for it and give them a blank cheque.

And many people will not make the distinction between a criticism of UK foreign policy, and criticism of the UK (and thus them) itself.

That is their problem. Corbyn made his point quite clearly, if any British person takes criticism of foreign policy as some kind of personal attack on them I would say they need a word with themself.

And you don't have to do that, but know that this isn't an atypical demand being made by the Tories in Britain alone.

Their problem or not, the question was brought up of the difference in media coverage. This is why.

Whether it has or hasn't I don't know. But it was an issue becomes most people do not make this distinction when one criticizes their country, particularly on such an emotional and polemical topic, and Corbyn knew that, and so do you.

What absolute rubbish. Any sound minded person can tell the difference between the actions of the state and the actions of the individual. Just because the UK invaded Iraq does not mean that we should blame every citizen of the UK for this. The distinction is an easy one to make and apparently the people of the UK understand this, as Corbyn hasn't lost support for his actions.

And your idea that the state should be immune from criticism when its actions come back to bite it in the arse is disgustingly anti-democratic.

And you know for a fact that is how people feel.
Also, again, the electoral outcome wasn't the topic being discussed, but the different attitude adopted in media coverage.

Finally, I haven't said the State is immune from criticism. But I have repeatedly said that I do not share the phobia of the State that so many of you have. My State has had quite some time to turn Orwellian on us (as so many of you are sure is about to happen), and yet, it has not. Therefor, I don't illogically fear it, that is all.

[Nova Stephania]

Some are calling for the election to be postponed.

Not a chance in hell. If we do, then the terrorists win!

Thankfully Darth May has already explicitly stated that the election will go ahead.

And you don't have to do that, but know that this isn't an atypical demand being made by the Tories in Britain alone.

I don't give a monkeys. I'm not going to change my stance on this policy just because other countries are doing it, just like I'm not going to chance my stand on it just because you keep repeating that it's important. I want answers to the four or so questions I clearly laid out and am not willing to give the government a blank cheque, no matter which party is in power.

[Olerand]

What is with Anglos and this phobia of the State? What are the Tories going to do with these powers that is so nefarious, or Labour if it is in power, or the Lib-Dems (God forbid)?

These demands are reasonable, and increasingly necessary for public safety.

The state caused this problem with its policy of Muslim colonisation of the UK, and these powers, which will be sold as intended to protect people from Muslim colonists, will be used to suppress dissent from that policy. Everything that strengthens the state makes the situation worse because the state caused the situation.

The democratic state used to suck because it was a co-op which 10,000 cleaning ladies mismanage by outvoting the 100 accountants and engineers at the annual general meeting, and now it sucks because it's 100 professional manipulators using 10,000 cleaning ladies to outvote the 100 accountants and engineers. If the UK were run for a profit by just people with a clue, there's no way it would have adopted a policy of importing millions of IQ 90 dependants who are culturally and ideologically incompatible with the existing population.

Did you ever play some game like Civilisation 3? Imagine there was a policy that is like "MINUS 100 MONEY, PLUS 10 DISORDER". Would you click it? The state can't damn well stop clicking it.

This is another, uhm, interesting take on this, I suppose.

[Frank Zipper]

I just noticed the Survation poll that had the gap down to 1 point, though slightly odd coming the day after the ICM one that has it at 11 points.

[The Wolfiad]

I just noticed the Survation poll that had the gap down to 1 point, though slightly odd coming the day after the ICM one that has it at 11 points.

The battle of the pollsters is more fascinating than Jeremy Corbyn v Theresa May if you ask me.