Human rights brigade trying to make it harder to stop terror

[Axtol]

1. 12 attacks havent been stopped. MI5 have claimed this, but havent produced any evidence to support it. You CANNOT ask for more surveillance powers based on someomes word there has to be evidencd. Without evidence, how do I know that they aren't just talking out their arse, trying to keep people scared in order to justify their own pay packet. I dont trust a damn word they say after Snowden.

2. No evidence to suggest that more surveillance would equal more safety.

3. Even if there was, you are basically asking people to give up the very essence of what it means to be free, in order to be safe. Would that even be worth it? Maybe you would be safe, but you wouldnt have a life. You couldnt safely oppose or challenge what the government said as they would always be watching every minute of your life. You couldnt safely discuss and explore different ideas for fear that your discussions would be noted down, and then taken out of context and used to persecute you. Would being safe be worth it if you had to give up the very essence of what it means to be free?

[Jonathan Zito]

1. 12 attacks havent been stopped. MI5 have claimed this, but havent produced any evidence to support it. You CANNOT ask for more surveillance powers based on someomes word there has to be evidencd. Without evidence, how do I know that they aren't just talking out their arse, trying to keep people scared in order to justify their own pay packet. I dont trust a damn word they say after Snowden.

2. No evidence to suggest that more surveillance would equal more safety.

3. Even if there was, you are basically asking people to give up the very essence of what it means to be free, in order to be safe. Would that even be worth it? Maybe you would be safe, but you wouldnt have a life. You couldnt safely oppose or challenge what the government said as they would always be watching every minute of your life. You couldnt safely discuss and explore different ideas for fear that your discussions would be noted down, and then taken out of context and used to persecute you. Would being safe be worth it if you had to give up the very essence of what it means to be free?

I laugh at the signs on the cameras on tube platforms

Your security is of our concern

So if some mental fasctard stabs you they can watch you die on the platform

[Viper]

1. 12 attacks havent been stopped. MI5 have claimed this, but havent produced any evidence to support it. You CANNOT ask for more surveillance powers based on someomes word there has to be evidencd. Without evidence, how do I know that they aren't just talking out their arse, trying to keep people scared in order to justify their own pay packet. I dont trust a damn word they say after Snowden.

2. No evidence to suggest that more surveillance would equal more safety.

3. Even if there was, you are basically asking people to give up the very essence of what it means to be free, in order to be safe. Would that even be worth it? Maybe you would be safe, but you wouldnt have a life. You couldnt safely oppose or challenge what the government said as they would always be watching every minute of your life. You couldnt safely discuss and explore different ideas for fear that your discussions would be noted down, and then taken out of context and used to persecute you. Would being safe be worth it if you had to give up the very essence of what it means to be free?

You think they should tell us about all their ops?

[Guest]

Was Peter Power doing a Disaster Planning Day?

[luddite]

The Governments around the world are moving further and further to the right.... some are even flirting with outright fascism.

I know... lets remove whatever protections we have against the state

If you have a look at the definition of fascism you will find that Islam qualified on almost every count.
We welcome these facists into this country with open arms, Islam has a representative, as the mayor, in London, after the latest atrocity he is quoted as saying that terrorist attacks are part and parcel of living in a major city.
It is now the politicians have betrayed us and allowed the Islamification of this country.
Every single Muslim family in this country contains a potential Islamic terrorist.
But as Aziz would say, don't be frightened.

That statement is absolutely untrue.

The sentence you use was actually spoken SIX MONTHS AGO, and has been taken completely out of context by the usual suspects.

Trump's idiot son, Donald, has been widely ridiculed for his moronic tweet repeating your nonsense...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03 ... er-attack/

Oooh no, I got the sequence of events wrong.

Londonistan is still a Muslim controlled city and its still a travesty that Islam, a detestable doctrine, it's allowed to flourish and eventually dominate the native people.

No, you didn't 'get the sequence of events wrong'. You deliberately misquoted as well as taking completely out of context what he said.

You know it, but like many on the far right you don't have the balls to admit to your crude attempts to defame.

I see you've giving Aziz a run for his money but trying to post more utterly ridiculous bollocks than him.

Can you answer this question?
Which comes first, does becoming a leftard make you stupid or is it a prerequisite of becoming a leotard?

[McAz]

Poor Ludders, can't go a day without mentioning me.

[Axtol]

You think they should tell us about all their ops?

I don't think they have a choice. They are making some VERY serious claims, and want those claims to affect our policy towards monitoring. You've GOT to have evidence if you're doing that, someone's word is simply not enough if you want it to be taken that seriously. Now I'm a realist and understand that not everything about their operations can be made public, but a lot can, especially finished cases, as there isn't any operational need for secrecy in them. If they offer no evidence, then they could make ANY claim, and we would have no way of knowing whether they are telling the truth or just bullshitting us to justify their huge budgets. The days where you could just trust the security services on their word are LONG gone.

[Stooo]

You think they should tell us about all their ops?

I don't think they have a choice. They are making some VERY serious claims, and want those claims to affect our policy towards monitoring. You've GOT to have evidence if you're doing that, someone's word is simply not enough if you want it to be taken that seriously. Now I'm a realist and understand that not everything about their operations can be made public, but a lot can, especially finished cases, as there isn't any operational need for secrecy in them. If they offer no evidence, then they could make ANY claim, and we would have no way of knowing whether they are telling the truth or just bullshitting us to justify their huge budgets. The days where you could just trust the security services on their word are LONG gone.

What sort of information would interest you?

[Viper]

You think they should tell us about all their ops?

I don't think they have a choice. They are making some VERY serious claims, and want those claims to affect our policy towards monitoring. You've GOT to have evidence if you're doing that, someone's word is simply not enough if you want it to be taken that seriously. Now I'm a realist and understand that not everything about their operations can be made public, but a lot can, especially finished cases, as there isn't any operational need for secrecy in them. If they offer no evidence, then they could make ANY claim, and we would have no way of knowing whether they are telling the truth or just bullshitting us to justify their huge budgets. The days where you could just trust the security services on their word are LONG gone.

Post op classification is vital. They do not want to compromise a source or snitch. They would be handing a death sentance to them if they did that.

[Axtol]

Post op classification is vital. They do not want to compromise a source or snitch. They would be handing a death sentance to them if they did that.

Yes I know, we've been over this. I don't want them to name names, I know that some stuff needs to be kept secret. But they can't keep EVERYTHING about these "foiled plots" secret, or if they do then they cannot expect to use them as arguments to shape surveillance policy. Because how do we know that they are telling the truth? When they say they have foiled these plots, they could be talking out their arse, feeding us a lot of bullshit about non existent terror threats because their budget depends on the public and the government being scared of terrorism. Independent verification of facts is vital, we need to be given enough information to verify that what they've told us is correct. I don't trust a word MI5 says after Snowden. Their jobs revolve completely around lying and manipulating and twisting stuff, so how can anyone think it's a good idea to just trust their word? Do people actually still believe that the security services have our best interests at heart?

[Guest]

If you have a look at the definition of fascism you will find that Islam qualified on almost every count.
We welcome these facists into this country with open arms, Islam has a representative, as the mayor, in London, after the latest atrocity he is quoted as saying that terrorist attacks are part and parcel of living in a major city.
It is now the politicians have betrayed us and allowed the Islamification of this country.
Every single Muslim family in this country contains a potential Islamic terrorist.
But as Aziz would say, don't be frightened.

That statement is absolutely untrue.

The sentence you use was actually spoken SIX MONTHS AGO, and has been taken completely out of context by the usual suspects.

Trump's idiot son, Donald, has been widely ridiculed for his moronic tweet repeating your nonsense...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03 ... er-attack/

Oooh no, I got the sequence of events wrong.

Londonistan is still a Muslim controlled city and its still a travesty that Islam, a detestable doctrine, it's allowed to flourish and eventually dominate the native people.

No, you didn't 'get the sequence of events wrong'. You deliberately misquoted as well as taking completely out of context what he said.

You know it, but like many on the far right you don't have the balls to admit to your crude attempts to defame.

I see you've giving Aziz a run for his money but trying to post more utterly ridiculous bollocks than him.

Can you answer this question?
Which comes first, does becoming a leftard make you stupid or is it a prerequisite of becoming a leotard?

Keep your trolling to the Arms you sad sack of shit.

Thank you.

[Mavis]

Poor Ludders, can't go a day without mentioning me.

Don't worry, your crown is safe, Cannydc is not in your class.

[McAz]

Poor Ludders, can't go a day without mentioning me.

Don't worry, your crown is safe, Cannydc is not in your class.

Phew! Cheers Ludds, I was getting worried.

PS. Give us a shout when you're up for some hot action.

[William Bodie]

Post op classification is vital. They do not want to compromise a source or snitch. They would be handing a death sentance to them if they did that.

Yes I know, we've been over this. I don't want them to name names, I know that some stuff needs to be kept secret. But they can't keep EVERYTHING about these "foiled plots" secret, or if they do then they cannot expect to use them as arguments to shape surveillance policy. Because how do we know that they are telling the truth? When they say they have foiled these plots, they could be talking out their arse, feeding us a lot of bullshit about non existent terror threats because their budget depends on the public and the government being scared of terrorism. Independent verification of facts is vital, we need to be given enough information to verify that what they've told us is correct. I don't trust a word MI5 says after Snowden. Their jobs revolve completely around lying and manipulating and twisting stuff, so how can anyone think it's a good idea to just trust their word? Do people actually still believe that the security services have our best interests at heart?

I was watching a documentary about Diana Molnar and how the British security services murdered her in a south London railway siding. Quite disgusting.