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.


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 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)

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).


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.

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…