Skip to main content

Snooping proposal - not one I can support

I initially thought the proposal to track everyone's emails for a couple of years was an April Fool. Sadly it appears not to be.

Just because something is technically possible is no reason why government should implement it. I suppose we could insert a microchip in everyone's skull to record where they are and put this in a big database that can be accessed by a warrant.

That may be technically feasible, but is not something I would support. Nor are the reports of the proposals from government.

Comments

Jake Maverick said…
they've been doing for a decade at least...RIPA laws?
doesn't require a warrant. perfectly legal for them to break in and install cameras+ 'other devices'/ film your kiddies naked to, no warrant reuired....where u been?

new proposals just to make it easier....

and microchips....they been doing that to, for christ know's how long...thos fillings u get t the dentist? all come with RFID chips as standard now....thought you supposed to be up on technology? they dnt even bother with warraants when breaking into peoples homes and SELLING the trophy footage to tv companies for entertainment....do u not have a TV either? & 60 minute makeover? they're not even freaking g-men.....i dnt believe the crime has been legaalised for them...

you have no right to commit these crimes, i dnt care what colour your haair iss, who your employer or even if your name is Dominic Littledick

jsut because you have thermal nuclear warheads doesn't mean you have to go around nuking everybody.....

suspicious that tetra link suddenly disappeared shortly after posting it here.

and i dnt see becky contributing mch ;-) surely i should get my name in the credits or n expense account or soemthing by now? ;-)
Jake Maverick said…
you DO support t by continuing to accept money fom them, being part of their gang, doing what you are told
Jake Maverick said…
still worse than that, still moving towards further 'legalisin' this crime to (they've been doing to me for 12 years + now)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30964.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30961.htm

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: