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. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…