Heartland

"i believe the risk would be lower under labour because we are bringing in the measures to deal with the terrorist threat. we have to create a safer, more secure country, and it is our labour party that is achieving that"

discuss

The fear of terrorism is out of all proportion to the threat of terrorism. Your average "middle England" voter would spend his/her time far more profitably doing something about the effect of a sedentary lifestyle and overeating on her/his health.

Politicians of all parties have seized on the "threat of terrorism" as an effective way to keep the populace afraid; and this fear allows them to claim further powers in the name of "protecting" the people.

It is ironic in the extreme that western governments are becoming more authoritarian in the name of "protecting freedom".

Cold War II. Every society needs an enemy (as discussed in 1984 in more eloquent detail).

Russia/communism went away so we got a new one. And again, it's someone foreign and alien with funny writing and strange ideas. It could never have been India because too many people have been there on holiday, if you see what I mean.

but haven't events over the last three years demonstrated that there is a genuine threat? obviously the statistical likelihood of being caught up in a terrorist attack is tiny but does government not have a duty to protect its citizens from any threat, where possible?

RicheyJames wrote:but haven't events over the last three years demonstrated that there is a genuine threat? obviously the statistical likelihood of being caught up in a terrorist attack is tiny but does government not have a duty to protect its citizens from any threat, where possible?

drunk drivers, smoking, axe wielding maniac, probably all are more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack, but no government is trying to get re-elected on fighting those problems. Terrorism makes for better headlines.

In fact, when we cave in and let our government restrict our freedoms, we must then admit that the terrorists have won. Gone is our freedom and choice and we live in a frightened, stranglehold regime.
We never had this when the IRA were letting off bombs on the mainland. The attitude was to keep on as normal but be vigilant. No bombs have been let off by foreign terrorists but now the attitude is, everyone under the thumb. How strange.

RicheyJames wrote:but haven't events over the last three years demonstrated that there is a genuine threat? obviously the statistical likelihood of being caught up in a terrorist attack is tiny but does government not have a duty to protect its citizens from any threat, where possible?

The only places I've seen any government "protection from terrorists" is around the Houses of Parliament and other government buildings.

Seems to me that they're spending public money making sure they're safe from any alleged threat, whilst simulltaneously restricting the rights of the people of this country as "security measures" to help protect them from terrorists who they claim want to restrict the rights of the people of this country.

Rivers wrote:In fact, when we cave in and let our government restrict our freedoms, we must then admit that the terrorists have won.

but government, by its very nature, already restricts our freedoms in order to protect both ourselves and those around us.

but government, by its very nature, already restricts our freedoms in order to protect both ourselves and those around us

I should have added 'further restrict' perhaps and therefore my point is made, the terrorists have won in USA in my opinion. They have changed the lives of all citizens for the worse.

Rivers wrote:the terrorists have won in USA in my opinion. They have changed the lives of all citizens for the worse.

in what way?

I think I'm right in saying that any house can now be searched without even letting the owner know about it as part of Homeland Security. Forgive my vagueness but its been a few months since I last chewed the fat on this one

Don't feed the trolls.

i was interviewed in NY just after 9/11, about what i thought about having my bag searched on entry to a museum...

you get more security at leeds festival here, ffs

Rivers wrote:I think I'm right in saying that any house can now be searched without even letting the owner know about it as part of Homeland Security. Forgive my vagueness but its been a few months since I last chewed the fat on this one

i must confess that i was not aware of that particular little nugget (hence my request for examples). i too do not claim to have all the facts in my posession but thought the subject deserved an airing sprinkled as it is with a smattering of topicality.

i still believe that part of the "contract" of democracy is that we agree to forgo some of our freedoms in order that the state can better protect us from those who would do us harm. i don't remember an awful lot of fuss during the ira's campaign when the prevention of terrorism act was renewed year on year...

RicheyJames wrote:i still believe that part of the "contract" of democracy is that we agree to forgo some of our freedoms in order that the state can better protect us from those who would do us harm.

I'd agree with that, but the debate is primarily about where to draw the line between human rights & freedoms on one side and protection on the other.

I'm happy to accept my baggage being searched at an airport and restrictions on public ownership of firearms, but not trial without jury or internment without trial.

Most of the infringements on freedom brought in by the government as counter-terrorism measures seem more aimed at silencing people they don't like and locking them up without having to worry about pesky juries (or indeed without worrying about courts at all), rather than anything that could stop a hijacked airplane flying into an office block.

anyone been to Israel?

lol easy to get in but takes a 2 hr interrogation to get out

you get an interview at the airport...something like this

"have you photos of your visit?"....ermm no not developed yet
"did you speak or eat with any Arabs?".....absoluely not! (lie lie)
"show me in your Israel guide where the chapter is on Jerusalem".....help!
"why did you go into Egypt and Jordan"....because they were more interesting?
"what's your fathers job?".....huh?
"how much do you earn in your job?"......nosey!

and so it goes on

it was kinda funny coz I got a newbie who kept having to ask others what question to ask next

anyway, that's when you realise how lax our airports are. Although if it was like that every time you got on a plane would anyone go anywhere?

Richey - have you been watching 'The Power of Nightmares' on BBC2? I tried but it freaked me out too much!


With regards to Dark Angel's 'interrogation' Has anyone had to fill in a CRB lately? My latest one in Jan, had me filling in all sorts of the usual details but the final question had me spitting blood...they asked me to include all my bank details 'In order to make the processing quicker.'

Needles to say, I couldn't see why my bank details had anything to do with me being fit to work with children, so I let them deal with my application slowly

I think that 'hot potato' censorship is also included in this "contract of democracy ...to forgo some of our freedoms in order that the state can better protect us from those who would do us harm."

Again, I know I am coming at this from someone who works with small people, but small people become big people with miconceptions and false ideas.

Government are protecting us from a terrorist threat?
That's awfully good of them, seeing as they caused the threat in the first place. If we hadn't got caught up in America's war the terrorists wouldn't be targeting us now. In hindsight, looking at how many people have been killed in Iraq since the war started (or since the war ended for that matter) it would have been better to sit back and wait for Saddam to use his Weapons-Of-Mass-Destruction, THEN slapped him down for it afterwards. At least we'd have justification for doing something then, and less innocent people would have died.

Seeing as Saddam was charged with possessing WMD's and now it's proven he didn't have them, that means he was wrongfully arrested and should be released. Saying he was going to get WMD's in the future is a pathetic argument.

An analogy if you will. You're walking down the street and a policeman arrests you. You're charged with owning a sawnoff shotgun. You're thrown in jail and your house is done over, really trashed. Then they find that you didn't own a shotgun, but on reading through your diary they find that you were thinking of buying a shotgun in the future, and that you were gonna *shock horror* get a saw and make it into a swanoff. That's not good enough. You can't be charged with things you were *thinking* of doing. (Or has Orwell's vision really come true?) You were wrongfully charged and they have to let you go.

Saddam should be put back in power - at least he could control his people.
Yes, I know he gassed the Kurds and all that, but that wasn't the charge was it. If they want to get him on that they have to charge him for it, not fanny about with the WMD cráp. Slobodan Milosovic was charged by the UN for human rights violations. The UN should have dealt with Saddam the same way.

Meanwhile at home the government are too busy worrying about trivial issues like fox hunting, forcing the bill through parliament in a very dodgy way indeed. Regardless of what you think of fox hunting (I used to be against it but now I'm unsure) you have to agree its f*cking dodgy the way they FORCED the bill through when everyone seemed to be opposed to its passing. Meanwhile the hospitals, the NHS, and things that f*cking matter are falling apart.

The sad thing is Phony Tony will probably win the upcoming election because there's no alternative. The Tories can't hold onto a leader for more than 5 minutes so you never get familiar with him. They were getting there with Hague but then he bailed out.

Never trust anyone who wants that much power. Question why they want it. Is it because they genuinely care about their country (if so why do they always f*ck it up?) or is it for some sort of personal gain.
Choosing politicians should be a bit like jury service - you should be chosen. Obviously the standards would be WAY higher, so you'd be choosing from educated people, professors and the like, but done that way they'd do a damn sight better than the sorry shower of sh!t we have running the country now.

Where next. Iran, Korea ...Zimbabwe? "Yes Mr Bush, whatever you say sir," says Blair the toy poodle.

Little bit o' Politics...

Erk, I rarely talk politics and I've written all that. May as well hit submit.

Israel has more weapons of mass destruction than Iraq or Al Qaeda, and it has promised to use them unilaterally if it thinks it necessary. It makes pre-emptive airstrikes abroad, it infringes the human rights of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians, and more people died in Sabra and Chatila than 9/11. Like Saddam, it lays claim to territories it has no right to under international law, and employs an illegal policy of targetted assassination. But it's no threat to world peace or the security of Joe Bloggs sitting in the Dog and Duck. Discuss.

Dan wrote:Government are protecting us from a terrorist threat?
That's awfully good of them, seeing as they caused the threat in the first place. If we hadn't got caught up in America's war the terrorists wouldn't be targeting us now.

what a ridiculous assertion. as decadent, godless westerners we were targets for islamic fundamentalists long before george and tony's misadventure in iraq.

In hindsight, looking at how many people have been killed in Iraq since the war started (or since the war ended for that matter) it would have been better to sit back and wait for Saddam to use his Weapons-Of-Mass-Destruction, THEN slapped him down for it afterwards. At least we'd have justification for doing something then, and less innocent people would have died.

did you actually think that statement through at all? or do you honestly think it makes a difference to the families of those innocent people whether they were killed by an iraqi bomb or an american bomb?

Seeing as Saddam was charged with possessing WMD's and now it's proven he didn't have them, that means he was wrongfully arrested and should be released.

well if that was the charge you might have a point. but it wasn't. the legal basis for war was un resolution 1441 which was wholly concerned with the ba'athist regime's continued obstruction of weapons inspectors. it looks like you've been taken in by bush and blair's spin...

Saying he was going to get WMD's in the future is a pathetic argument.

it is, isn't it? and i totally agree that the propoganda which number ten and the white house have churned out both before and after the war has been at best mendacious and at worst laughable. but that's not the point really.

Saddam should be put back in power - at least he could control his people.

i really hope you're joking now.

Meanwhile at home the government are too busy worrying about trivial issues like fox hunting, forcing the bill through parliament in a very dodgy way indeed. Regardless of what you think of fox hunting (I used to be against it but now I'm unsure) you have to agree its f*cking dodgy the way they FORCED the bill through when everyone seemed to be opposed to its passing.

i've made my own feelings about fox hunting known elsewhere and i agree that there are far more important issues that government should be dealing with. however, there was nothing at all "dodgy" about the way this bill was passed. the primacy of the house of commons was confirmed by the 1911 parliament act as it must for democracy to mean anything. the house of lords do an excellent job most of the time in examining and amending proposed legislation but must not be allowed to block legislation indefinitely when it is clearly the will of our elected representatives.

The sad thing is Phony Tony will probably win the upcoming election because there's no alternative. The Tories can't hold onto a leader for more than 5 minutes so you never get familiar with him. They were getting there with Hague but then he bailed out.

the tories have far deeper problems than who's in charge this week. the new labour project has radically altered the british political landscape and the conservative party has yet to react to that. they are also still (fourteen years after her fall) in the shadow of thatcher and deeply divided over europe. i could go on but i doubt anyone's got this far anyway...

Never trust anyone who wants that much power. Question why they want it. Is it because they genuinely care about their country (if so why do they always f*ck it up?) or is it for some sort of personal gain.
Choosing politicians should be a bit like jury service - you should be chosen.

it's certainly an interesting idea but i'm not sure it's practical.

Obviously the standards would be WAY higher, so you'd be choosing from educated people, professors and the like

why? shouldn't such a system be wholly representative of the population? and where do you set the bar?

Erk, I rarely talk politics and I've written all that. May as well hit submit.

bet you wish you hadn't now...

MrChris wrote:Israel has more weapons of mass destruction than Iraq or Al Qaeda, and it has promised to use them unilaterally if it thinks it necessary. It makes pre-emptive airstrikes abroad, it infringes the human rights of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians, and more people died in Sabra and Chatila than 9/11. Like Saddam, it lays claim to territories it has no right to under international law, and employs an illegal policy of targetted assassination. But it's no threat to world peace or the security of Joe Bloggs sitting in the Dog and Duck. Discuss.

But Israel has to cope with being surrounded by a set of neighbouring countries which deny it has any right to exist at all. It may not cope with this terribly well but it does suffer some fairly unique pressures.

Neither arab nor jew seem capable of coming up with a viable compromise over this, so blaming Israel alone is a touch unfair. Discuss.

If it were me, I'd give it all back to the Christians. The Pope can sort it all out

RicheyJames wrote:

Dan wrote:Government are protecting us from a terrorist threat?
That's awfully good of them, seeing as they caused the threat in the first place. If we hadn't got caught up in America's war the terrorists wouldn't be targeting us now.

what a ridiculous assertion. as decadent, godless westerners we were targets for islamic fundamentalists long before george and tony's misadventure in iraq.

Could we say exacerbated the threat, then? Or would increased be better, since I know how to spell that?

Arguably they have over-stated the immediate risk to you and I as individuals. I can't be bothered to work out the odds, but I can think of several things more likely to kill me than a suicide bomber at Lakeside. I can honestly say that living in the post 9-11 world hasn't changed my day-to-day life at all, nor has it had a meaningful impact on anyone else I know. Complacency or a realistic assessment of risk?

RJ wrote:

Dan wrote:Seeing as Saddam was charged with possessing WMD's and now it's proven he didn't have them, that means he was wrongfully arrested and should be released.

well if that was the charge you might have a point. but it wasn't. the legal basis for war was un resolution 1441 which was wholly concerned with the ba'athist regime's continued obstruction of weapons inspectors. it looks like you've been taken in by bush and blair's spin...

But the legal basis for war was never ratified by the UN, thus the justification for war in Iraq (as opposed to international condemnation and prolonged sitting upon hands) has to be Bush and Blair's spin. That was all about WMDs and threat to US/UK/global security, not liberating the Iraqi people. How much popular support do you think we could rustle up for a war based on helping a bunch Muslim rag-heads (to adopt the language of the Dog & Duck saloon bar for a moment) get rid of a government we don't like very much? Even less than we could for a war intended to stop us being murdered in our beds by the same bunch of Arabs.

RJ wrote:

Dan wrote:The sad thing is Phony Tony will probably win the upcoming election because there's no alternative. The Tories can't hold onto a leader for more than 5 minutes so you never get familiar with him. They were getting there with Hague but then he bailed out.

the tories have far deeper problems than who's in charge this week. the new labour project has radically altered the british political landscape and the conservative party has yet to react to that. they are also still (fourteen years after her fall) in the shadow of thatcher and deeply divided over europe. i could go on but i doubt anyone's got this far anyway...

You don't think that Labour have merely extended the Thatcherite project and that Blair is in her shadow just as much as Howard and chums? Thatcher's political legacy continues to extend its grimy tentacles into far too many facets of our society for my liking, but that's another debate.

Dan wrote:Obviously the standards would be WAY higher, so you'd be choosing from educated people, professors and the like

Have you been to a university recently? Have you looked at our education system? Nothing there gives me any confidence that academics are better equipped to govern than the rest of us. All political systems are flawed ... ours is just among the least flawed set of principles by which to govern a country. Short of making me Grand Supreme Ruler of the World, of course

andymackem wrote:

MrChris wrote:Israel has more weapons of mass destruction than Iraq or Al Qaeda, and it has promised to use them unilaterally if it thinks it necessary. It makes pre-emptive airstrikes abroad, it infringes the human rights of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians, and more people died in Sabra and Chatila than 9/11. Like Saddam, it lays claim to territories it has no right to under international law, and employs an illegal policy of targetted assassination. But it's no threat to world peace or the security of Joe Bloggs sitting in the Dog and Duck. Discuss.

But Israel has to cope with being surrounded by a set of neighbouring countries which deny it has any right to exist at all. It may not cope with this terribly well but it does suffer some fairly unique pressures.

Neither arab nor jew seem capable of coming up with a viable compromise over this, so blaming Israel alone is a touch unfair. Discuss.

If it were me, I'd give it all back to the Christians. The Pope can sort it all out

I understand that view, and of course it's true that Israel IS surrounded by unfriendly neighbours. But if the French invaded Kent because it once belonged to them, and God told them to do it, I think the English would be a tad unfriendly too. Especially once the English were cleared out and the French started dotting settlements around the home counties, and pointing missiles at London, Edinburgh and Cardiff. We might even think the whole thing a touch rude .

I agree that context is everything in a case like this, and I'm just putting the other side. I'm no historian, but I believe that before 1948 relations between Jews and Arabs were fairly peaceful in Palestine. I can accept the need for an official state for the Jews in Israel too, and think that Arab leaders who do not accept this are living in cloud cuckoo land, and prolonging the conflict. But I think historically it is also clear that the Israelis have been involved in a protracted and illegal land grab which has destabilised the region even more .

andymackem wrote:

RicheyJames wrote:

Dan wrote:Government are protecting us from a terrorist threat?
That's awfully good of them, seeing as they caused the threat in the first place. If we hadn't got caught up in America's war the terrorists wouldn't be targeting us now.

what a ridiculous assertion. as decadent, godless westerners we were targets for islamic fundamentalists long before george and tony's misadventure in iraq.

Could we say exacerbated the threat, then? Or would increased be better, since I know how to spell that?

no argument at all on that score. the war in iraq is fabulous recruiting propoganda for islamic terror groups all over the world.

andy wrote:Arguably they have over-stated the immediate risk to you and I as individuals. I can't be bothered to work out the odds, but I can think of several things more likely to kill me than a suicide bomber at Lakeside. I can honestly say that living in the post 9-11 world hasn't changed my day-to-day life at all, nor has it had a meaningful impact on anyone else I know. Complacency or a realistic assessment of risk?

i made a similar point earlier. the odds of any of us dying at the hands of a suicide bomber are tiny and do tend to be over-stated by both politicians and the media. but i think it's difficult to argue that there is no threat at all in which case surely government must act?

andy wrote:But the legal basis for war was never ratified by the UN,

well that's where it gets tricky isn't it? resolution 1441 warned iraq that it would "face serious consequences" if it failed to comply so it all depends on how you interpret "serious consequences".

andy wrote:You don't think that Labour have merely extended the Thatcherite project and that Blair is in her shadow just as much as Howard and chums? Thatcher's political legacy continues to extend its grimy tentacles into far too many facets of our society for my liking, but that's another debate.

i think it's absolutely right to see "new" labour as an extension of thatcherism and that's the radical change in the political landscape i was referring to. labour's shift to the right has pushed the tories' to the margins when they should really be casting off the mantle of thatcher and staking a claim for the middle ground with a revival of the paternal conservatism of the 50s and 60s. thatcher's legacy will be with us for a long time yet but, as you say, that's another debate altogether....

Surely the left-right dichotomy is not so important any more? With the cold war being over, like it or not, the political mainstream seems to regard socialism as dead and rampant capitalism as the victorious paradigm. I submit that the new political battleground is authoritarianism versus libertarianism (or liberalism-with-a-small-L).