Today I'm angry about.....

[TANGODANCER]

New Labour brought in oppressive anti-terror laws ...

Is there such a thing as an un-oppressive anti terrorist law? Surely the whole idea is to prevent and not be "wise after the event"? The whole concept is to prevent terrorism not set up courts of judgement after loads of people die.

[jimbo]

A classic Daily Mail headline today regarding the scrapping of NICE

'Drug victory for patients: 'Penny-pinching' NICE stripped of power to ban life-saving drugs'

Absolute joke. Why can't the article instead focus on the thorough guidelines that the same organisation provide for doctors all over the country. Let's scrap those as well and then see where we are.

[thebish]

A classic Daily Mail headline today regarding the scrapping of NICE

'Drug victory for patients: 'Penny-pinching' NICE stripped of power to ban life-saving drugs'

Absolute joke. Why can't the article instead focus on the thorough guidelines that the same organisation provide for doctors all over the country. Let's scrap those as well and then see where we are.

I bet GPs are gonna love explaining to patients how they can't prescribe the latest speculative £20,000 a month wonder-drug when patients get the idea that the GP is now in control...

[William the White]

A classic Daily Mail headline today regarding the scrapping of NICE

'Drug victory for patients: 'Penny-pinching' NICE stripped of power to ban life-saving drugs'

Absolute joke. Why can't the article instead focus on the thorough guidelines that the same organisation provide for doctors all over the country. Let's scrap those as well and then see where we are.

So now we have a non-penny-pinching government all those cancer patients can crack open the champagne... FFS!!!

[thebish]

A classic Daily Mail headline today regarding the scrapping of NICE

'Drug victory for patients: 'Penny-pinching' NICE stripped of power to ban life-saving drugs'

Absolute joke. Why can't the article instead focus on the thorough guidelines that the same organisation provide for doctors all over the country. Let's scrap those as well and then see where we are.

So now we have a non-penny-pinching government all those cancer patients can crack open the champagne... FFS!!!

don't worry William - the big society is coming - fuelled by Nectar Points.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... ety-reward

(apparently it's the latest thing - "nudge theory")

incidentally - it seems government has turned bad... for once I agree with Dave...

[Prufrock]

New Labour brought in oppressive anti-terror laws ...

Is there such a thing as an un-oppressive anti terrorist law? Surely the whole idea is to prevent and not be "wise after the event"? The whole concept is to prevent terrorism not set up courts of judgement after loads of people die.

Erm...yes? The first three online dictionary hits I get for 'oppression' each give the exercise of power 'in a cruel or unjust way'. I don't think every piece of anti-terror legislation qualifies as such. Section 44 which allows for stop and search without reasonable grounds according to a hunch and professional intuition, a law designed to be used in very select circumstances for the purpose of finding 'articles that could be used in connection with terrorism', yet has been used to search gangs for knives, take cameras from tourists, and search peaceful anti-war protestors certainly qualifies, at least in its implementation as 'oppressive'. These are the powers Hoboh, whilst talking actual sense, was on about earlier.

As Thomas Jefferson once didn't actually say, "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order shall lose both, and deserve neither". It's tidier than Ben Franklin's, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[TANGODANCER]

As Thomas Jefferson once didn't actually say, "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order shall lose both, and deserve neither". It's tidier than Ben Franklin's, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Good. A copy to be issued to every known terrorist and that should do it then.

Idealism is sometimes a long way removed from reality. Tango 2010.

[thebish]

New Labour brought in oppressive anti-terror laws ...

Is there such a thing as an un-oppressive anti terrorist law?

...an interesting discussion starter you pose for us Tango.

To give us a chance at answering it'd be helpful if you expanded a little bit on what you mean by an "oppressive" law. People would have different definitions, I'd imagine, so what's the definition that lies behind your interesting question?

[TANGODANCER]

New Labour brought in oppressive anti-terror laws ...

Is there such a thing as an un-oppressive anti terrorist law?

...an interesting discussion starter you pose for us Tango.

To give us a chance at answering it'd be helpful if you expanded a little bit on what you mean by an "oppressive" law. People would have different definitions, I'd imagine, so what's the definition that lies behind your interesting question?

I didn't really pose a question at all. Just an opposite to Pru's statement. His answer should be more fodder for your debate. Terrorism does actually exist. Pru's talking ideal world again, that doesn't. That's it.

[Montreal Wanderer]

New Labour brought in oppressive anti-terror laws ...

Is there such a thing as an un-oppressive anti terrorist law? Surely the whole idea is to prevent and not be "wise after the event"? The whole concept is to prevent terrorism not set up courts of judgement after loads of people die.

Erm...yes? The first three online dictionary hits I get for 'oppression' each give the exercise of power 'in a cruel or unjust way'. I don't think every piece of anti-terror legislation qualifies as such. Section 44 which allows for stop and search without reasonable grounds according to a hunch and professional intuition, a law designed to be used in very select circumstances for the purpose of finding 'articles that could be used in connection with terrorism', yet has been used to search gangs for knives, take cameras from tourists, and search peaceful anti-war protestors certainly qualifies, at least in its implementation as 'oppressive'. These are the powers Hoboh, whilst talking actual sense, was on about earlier.

As Thomas Jefferson once didn't actually say, "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order shall lose both, and deserve neither". It's tidier than Ben Franklin's, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I don't understand, prufrock. You say not all anti-terrorists laws are used in an unjust way, then give an example of one that is used oppressively. Are you saying (sorry writing as in Jefferson to Madison) the law is fine, it's only the implementation that is oppressive?

[Prufrock]

New Labour brought in oppressive anti-terror laws ...

Is there such a thing as an un-oppressive anti terrorist law? Surely the whole idea is to prevent and not be "wise after the event"? The whole concept is to prevent terrorism not set up courts of judgement after loads of people die.

Erm...yes? The first three online dictionary hits I get for 'oppression' each give the exercise of power 'in a cruel or unjust way'. I don't think every piece of anti-terror legislation qualifies as such. Section 44 which allows for stop and search without reasonable grounds according to a hunch and professional intuition, a law designed to be used in very select circumstances for the purpose of finding 'articles that could be used in connection with terrorism', yet has been used to search gangs for knives, take cameras from tourists, and search peaceful anti-war protestors certainly qualifies, at least in its implementation as 'oppressive'. These are the powers Hoboh, whilst talking actual sense, was on about earlier.

As Thomas Jefferson once didn't actually say, "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order shall lose both, and deserve neither". It's tidier than Ben Franklin's, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I don't understand, prufrock. You say not all anti-terrorists laws are used in an unjust way, then give an example of one that is used oppressively. Are you saying (sorry writing as in Jefferson to Madison) the law is fine, it's only the implementation that is oppressive?

I think there is a convincing argument that this law itself is oppressive. Stop and search without reasonable grounds is not a path I think we, or any civilised society should be going down. I think there is an even more convincing argument that this law, oppressive or not, has been applied oppressively, and wrongly, for a purpose it was not designed. Tango suggested all anti-terror laws are oppressive, I don't think that is necessarily the case, given to me oppression is stronger than 'limiting' and implies unjustness.

[thebish]

New Labour brought in oppressive anti-terror laws ...

Is there such a thing as an un-oppressive anti terrorist law?

...an interesting discussion starter you pose for us Tango.

To give us a chance at answering it'd be helpful if you expanded a little bit on what you mean by an "oppressive" law. People would have different definitions, I'd imagine, so what's the definition that lies behind your interesting question?

I didn't really pose a question at all. Just an opposite to Pru's statement. His answer should be more fodder for your debate. Terrorism does actually exist. Pru's talking ideal world again, that doesn't. That's it.

Pru never suggested Terrorism does not exist - what on earth are you on about?

[TANGODANCER]

New Labour brought in oppressive anti-terror laws ...

Is there such a thing as an un-oppressive anti terrorist law?

...an interesting discussion starter you pose for us Tango.

To give us a chance at answering it'd be helpful if you expanded a little bit on what you mean by an "oppressive" law. People would have different definitions, I'd imagine, so what's the definition that lies behind your interesting question?

I didn't really pose a question at all. Just an opposite to Pru's statement. His answer should be more fodder for your debate. Terrorism does actually exist. Pru's talking ideal world again, that doesn't. That's it.

Pru never suggested Terrorism does not exist - what on earth are you on about?

Same old, same old Bish. Try actually reading the posts instead of keep adopting your usual modus operandum. Nowhere, nowhere at all, did I say Pru suggested terrorism doesn't exist. If you're incapable of understanding simple things then I can't help you.

[thebish]

Tango - NOBODY has suggested terrorism doesn't exist - surely you coming out with the assertion "Terrorism does actually exist" impies that you think someone (if not Pru - though he was the obvious candidate as it was his post you were replying to) has suggested it doesn't - else why say it at all??

it would be like me ending this post by saying... errr...

Most cats DO have four legs, you know.

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

bish, this fella



Thinks you're a bastard.

[Bruce Rioja]

Tango - NOBODY has suggested terrorism doesn't exist - surely you coming out with the assertion "Terrorism does actually exist" impies that you think someone (if not Pru - though he was the obvious candidate as it was his post you were replying to) has suggested it doesn't - else why say it at all??

it would be like me ending this post by saying... errr...

Most cats DO have four legs, you know.

[TANGODANCER]

Tango - NOBODY has suggested terrorism doesn't exist - surely you coming out with the assertion "Terrorism does actually exist" impies that you think someone (if not Pru - though he was the obvious candidate as it was his post you were replying to) has suggested it doesn't - else why say it at all??
it would be like me ending this post by saying... errr...
Most cats DO have four legs, you know.

Aye, but they don't go around blowing people up, so not really much to do with anything..

Terrorism does actually exist. Pru's talking ideal world again, that doesn't.

Read as, (since you conveniently left the last bit off) Terrorism is a reality, an ideal world is a pipe dream. Any laws that prevent terrorism can be as oppressive as they like as far as I'm concerned. . I'll bid you goodnight.

[William the White]

Tango - NOBODY has suggested terrorism doesn't exist - surely you coming out with the assertion "Terrorism does actually exist" impies that you think someone (if not Pru - though he was the obvious candidate as it was his post you were replying to) has suggested it doesn't - else why say it at all??
it would be like me ending this post by saying... errr...
Most cats DO have four legs, you know.

Aye, but they don't go around blowing people up, so not really much to do with anything..

Terrorism does actually exist. Pru's talking ideal world again, that doesn't.

Read as, (since you conveniently left the last bit off) Terrorism is a reality, an ideal world is a pipe dream. Any laws that prevent terrorism can be as oppressive as they like as far as I'm concerned. . I'll bid you goodnight.

How will you know if they work?

[thebish]

Read as, (since you conveniently left the last bit off) Terrorism is a reality, an ideal world is a pipe dream. Any laws that prevent terrorism can be as oppressive as they like as far as I'm concerned. . I'll bid you goodnight.

In that case we disagree.

I don't have a beard - but I would still object to an anti-terror law that advocated shooting on sight anyone with a beard because some terrorists have beards... I would judge that too oppressive.

I will also continue to object to oppressive anti-terror laws in Burma and China.

there is a limit - the perfectly rational and straightforward point that Pru ws making - beyond which the laws themselves take away the same freedoms that the terrorists seek to remove - and then you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Pru is not advocating a cake and candy ideal world on la-la planet - merely sound common sense.

I suspect that you don't really believe what you say - that "Any laws that prevent terrorism can be as oppressive as they like". I suspect what you mean is "Any laws that prevent terrorism can be as oppressive as they like to other people as long as it is not me and my family, and if it was, then of course I'd object."

My guess is that if you were arrested without charge and held in a cell for 42 days without charge and then released without charge or explanation - you'd object, or - if you were arrested and flown to guantanamo bay and held in a cell for 7 years without charge or trial or access to a lawyer or your family - then you'd object.

my guess also is that if one of your children was shot by anti-terror police whilst going about his/her ordinary business on an underground train, that you'd object.

maybe you wouldn't - in which case I'd be genuinely surprised - but, whatever you say, swans DO have wings - that's reality, not some lunatic fantasy world.

[thebish]

Read as, (since you conveniently left the last bit off) Terrorism is a reality, an ideal world is a pipe dream.

you claim pru is talking about an pipe-dream "ideal world". So - if it is not the absence of terrorism in this "ideal world" - what is "ideal" about the "pipe-dream" world Pru suggests?