Skip to main content

Snooping proposal - hopefully on its way out

I was one of a number of Lib Dem MPs to publicly oppose the government's suggestions on online snooping. I have linked to a letter in The Independent of which I was one of the signatories.

There is another letter in The Guardian. I don't know why my name doesn't appear in the letter in The Guardian, but to me it is important to record that I have publicly opposed such an extension of state surveillance.

I personally don't mind CCTV in shopping centres. However, the government's proposals were clearly completely wrong.

Comments

Jake Maverick said…
your name is there now!

RIPA still there though. still ingerprinting school kids. still dropping bombs on children
still murdering people with immunity
still breaking into poples houses and selling it to companies for entertainment
still cameras recording audio every as well
you still have my dna, fingerprints and probably a chip in me....you still have't accused me of anything!

i have no problem with that in shopping centress, ithout the audio and at a resolution wher lip reaing software is of no use...
people recording my comings and goigsfrom my own home or when i viit my gran is a REAL problem, as wella s cameras in the house....

and this too still obviously going to happen with clegg in full support...
Jake Maverick said…
umm..more emails greyed out before i clicked on them again....long live the ffiffth column is what i say!

anyway, another truthsayer......what ar you doing to him?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29938
Jake Maverick said…
anonymous knobheads at Sky also exempt from proscution now? is it really only the unemployed that thes secret laws apply to now.....?

but regardless, surely all the conictions are safe now????

FREE THE CANOE MAN!

AND THE MOTHER WHO DID THE DECENT THING AND PUT HER SON OUT OF HIS MISERY WHEN THE PIGYOBS TRIED TO MURDER HIM AND NHS STAFF KEPT ON TORTURING HIM......
Jake Maverick said…
anybody ever heard of a DavidBromley/ Bromhall, not his 'slave name'? apparently works for MI5....but people who work for mafia5 aren't supposed to admit they work for mafia5....same with the poolice, and all g-men now as far as i can gather....

trying to trick me into agreeing to be abducted from the country, even though i am banned from leaving the country...all very odd and soemthing definately up!
Jake Maverick said…
thought u might have blocked that one first time around because of the name....

dare you to link to this one though, not even 'legalised' but you're still doin it?

http://wikileaks.org/the-spyfiles.html

and all those school kiddies, considering that European court ruling couple of years back now.....what have you fitted EVERY SINGLE CHILD up for in order to make that crime legal?
Jake Maverick said…
secret courts...way past time to remove Clegg? clash the coalition?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/08/special-report-britain-rendition-libya

shame on you clarke

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/apr/04/clarke-defends-secret-courts-plans-clegg

& yet further evidenc into the blatantly obvious....you're only allowed to base your decisions on whaat we tell you....same with the poxy morons in the civil service povifing 'information' for ministers to make their decisions on....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/23/juror-contempt-court-online-research

disgusting ccountry we're surviving in
Jake Maverick said…
don't click it you're epileptic

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cia-wins-fight-to-keep-mps-in-dark-on-rendition-7631357.html
Jake Maverick said…
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Police-set-join-London-protest/story-15770536-detail/story.html

& that one made me laugh! pigyobs gonna kick the shit out of themselves now and then prosecute themselves/ lie to themselves for alleging to have threatened to defend themselves? or is it time for some student payback.....?

you wanna solve the defict problem all u need to do is to wire up those cameras to the Internet and make it pay per view!

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…