Britain, Big Brother's watching you!

:lol: none.
As I said ''My perceptions are:'' obviously my perceptions differ from yours and skips.
I was asked a question I responded. .

I'm all for gaining new insight ronnie - show me some evidence to show me i'm misguided and i'll read them. I do need some new glasses - the bastards are ripping me off though. I only watch BB for the tits and ass - just like the majority of the viewers.
I do watch plenty of current affairs programmes thanks .
I will not be rude like you and question your grasp of politics - i'll just wait for you to show me where I am wrong.

 

I know I know . I know I left out some important + - .
It was ''off topic'' [sorry] so I just kept it short.
I have responded about the ''big brother'' issue - and the thousands of laws enacted by Blair.
Maybe you could respond to that and lift my ignorance

 

Surely something can't be important to a given issue and off topic to the issue simultaneously?

 

Thanks - but lets not get into a arguement about this - there is no need.
I failed to agree with the sentiment of the thread and some crazed burger munching drunk decided he would exert his god complex on me.
I hope skip responds - i know ronnie will not.

 

well how come that what is evident to 99% of the people in this country and almost apparent to the other 9.99999% seems totally unapparent to you and the only others I can think of who take your line in all political thinking are those corrupt retard politicians in councils and in parliament. It seems you purposely advocate the government line regardless of the argument which seems futile - actually when I think of it you wind me up as much as that pug faced retard, Margaret Beckett , youre not her are you - you write like her !

 

Done some research on this have you ?.
Ofcourse not everybody is going to think that my perceptions are accurate.
Especially fervent detractors of goverment as you and skip - I was not expecting anybody to say ''oh yeah matt you have a good point there''.
Does 99.99% of people buy into your perceptions ? I very much doubt that.
So the hell what - that is the thing about having a opinion.

I purposely ''advocate the government line regardless of the argument '' as much as you purposely detract from the goverment line regardless of the argument - weird that eh ? maybe we are two sides of the same coin ?.
Nooo to be honest I don't and you are being unfair but - what the hell - you are funny and I forgive you.
No i'm not Margaret Beckett silly .

Like I said ''i'll just wait for you to show me where I am wrong''

 

I love a good laugh :lol:

Oh yes, maybe I should stop watching big brother at top volume, it's making me deaf

Seriously though, the very fact that you can post stuff like this shows it's not as bad here as some countries.

 

Tell sun heart girl what capitalists plans to do with the "free speech" internet, Ronnie. I don't think there's anyone working for the government in here. People are their own worst enemy. Am I wrong?

I just think people "want" to believe that everything's going to be alright. Laugh as much as you can now, people. In the future it will be a memory, so you can explain to your grandchildren what laughter was.

 

I think Ronnie is a Daily Mail Journalist -

 

I did stumble across a seemingly decent book: Silencing Political Dissent: How Post-September 11 Anti-Terrorism Measures Threaten Our Civil Liberties (Paperback) - I might even buy a copy [as it is so cheap].
Me personally - I read thoughts like yours and hers most days - very well articulated and on the mark [as far as you and her are concerened].
I do think we can't do exactly the same things as we once could - but I do not think our rights have been infringed to the extent you suggest.

To be honest the news and the internet is rammed full of dissent of one kind or another - be that old ladies out side parliament - or web sites like this.

It is very easy to make sweeping generalisations but I do think when we get to the nitty gritty it is not as bad as it is being made out to be.

What is fairly absent is objection to your kind of logic.

I did find one:

''Taking Liberties is selective, overstated and, for all that it will probably have the good effect of making audiences more aware of the issues, complacently unhistorical. It is just not true, as the film claims, that Labour Britain is going the way of Nazi Germany. Nor that the Rwandan genocide was caused by identity cards of the sort that Blair wants to introduce here. And it is quite simply a lie that "in just 10 years, [Blair] has successfully dismantled our basic liberties". To take a single example, of which the film and like-minded writers make much, it is untrue that Blair has taken away an ancient right to demonstrate near the House of Commons. There never was any such ancient right.

Look around you. We do not live in a police state. We do not inhabit Nazi Germany, or anything like it. To pretend that we do, or that we almost do, or that individual and other rights are being systematically eroded to a point of negation, or that those rights are less well protected than in the past, is none of it true. It rests on a misreading of the past, a failure to engage with the present, the unassuaged wound of Iraq, and a conceptual confusion between a "freedom from" and a "right to". ''
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2099036,00.html

 

*Shedtroll Smiles and waves for the camera in his room*

 

Turn up your speaker - you might hear MI7 asking you too cut your hair .

 

The point being this : Anyone who keeps saying that "at least its better here than anywhere else " is living in cloud fucking cuckoo land. Even the people in Morocco are more free than Britain and the USA there is greater freedom of speech and BTW freedom of speech is not merely the right to dissent. it is the right to absent. Soon even that right will disappear when they adopt the Australian system where failure to vote means a hefty £2000 fine ($4000 us)- like I would pay that bastard. The reason being that they want to get you in a catch 22 - ok you vote dont you ? well now you pay a poll tax soi we can continue our political parties - youy pay a part of your tax so we can campaign - dont like it tough luck everyone pays whether you support us or not and as well you cannot opt out !

Now free speech is not merely absenting and dissenting but also dissent with a purpose , which is to dissent with the idea of persuading people not to vote - how can I tell people not to vote if that is against the law ???? where is my free speech ???
you look at how many laws there are designed to inhibit free speech in exactly that way !

So basically anarchism is outlawed - infact it already is since the government deemed it illegal some two or three years ago I believe - to espouse any doctrine which seeks to destroy "parliamentary democracy"- even if that doctrine is about bringing in other forms of democracy. you cannot get a job in any public organisation if you dont believe in parliamentary democracy or if you live in the same house or know anyone who is anti parliamentary democracy !!!

that is the point - parliamentary democracy is nothing at all t6o do with democracy except in name

 

and their other politicians should be sacked permanently too - I can think of about 600MP's in Britain that should be sqacked permanently

 

Ditto.

 

Tell you what boys lets replace our current democratic system by a group of thugs who promote the permanent sacking of people they don't like.

Got my support that one, duh.

 

Yes - my first post was not one of my best post I have to admit.
I would have added e.g in later posts bought thought it was pointless.
I would have recieved the same response however measured and with however much ''evidence'' I provided.

Yes in some cases I bet it is difficult to take kids to a protest - there are elements that drag a protest to a point that creates the atmosphere that occured in L.A. Both sides have something to answer for - for making protest [on some occasions] a hazard.
I'd say the majority of protests go with out incident.

There are two sides to that story - yes the police acted in a way that did not provoke a lot of harmony - but neither did a small minority of the protestors. They should and are being investigated for that. From what I have gathered - the protest went along peacefuly and with out incident.
Then people started throwing bottles/rock - overturning/burning vehicles.
Who keeps a check on those small minority who ruin it for everybody ?.

What would have happened if the police did nothing ? -
As I said certain actions on behalf of the police were wrong.
This does not mean the police did not allow a protest and that protest for the most part was not peaceful.
There are dozens if not hundreds of protests that go with out incident.

Allowing one incident to colour how protests are in America - is wrong.

They did not silence dissent - as I said the protest for the most part went with out incident. Something sparked off the trouble that unsued at the end and some actions were clearly beyond what is acceptable - this goes for both sides.