Britain - Terror 'may force freedom curbs'

Status
Not open for further replies.

CubDriver

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
57
Location
Oregon
Link to the artical

When I read this artical a quote comes to mind:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

Terror 'may force freedom curbs'
Britain might have to modify its freedoms in the short term in order to prevent their "misuse and abuse" by terrorists, John Reid has said.
He conceded that was never an easy request, but it was up to everyone to ask "what price our security, at what cost can we preserve our freedoms".
The UK faced its "most sustained period of severe threat since the end of World War II", the home secretary warned.
He urged people from all communities to help by being vigilant.

'Not racism'
He argued, in a speech to think tank Demos, that while the police and security services were doing all they could to protect the public, they cannot be sure of stopping terrorist attacks.
He also described migration as the "greatest challenge" to the EU, claiming that there was a need to get away from the notion that people who discuss this were somehow racist, because "they are not".
His words come a week after the Court of Appeal said control orders used to restrain the movements of six terror suspects broke human rights laws.
As he promised to appeal against the ruling, Mr Reid said another attack on the UK was "highly likely".
In his address, Mr Reid used stark terms to describe how today's terrorists were "unconstrained" in their intentions, by international conventions, standards or morality.
"None of us should be anything other than vigilant and that vigilance is the price of securing our freedom," he said.
"There is no room for complacency. We are probably in the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of the Second World War.
"While I am confident that the security services and police will deliver 100% effort and 100% dedication, they cannot guarantee 100% success.
"Our security services and the apparatus of the state, while they are an absolutely essential pre-requisite for defeating terrorism, cannot be sufficient on their own.
"Our common security in this country can only be assured by a common effort from all sections of society."

Security rethink needed
Mr Reid said the "challenge to all of us" means "we may have to modify some of our freedoms in the short-term in order to prevent their misuse and abuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy our freedoms and values in the long-term".
"It is up to each and all of us to ask the questions: what price our security? What price our freedoms? At what cost can we preserve our freedoms?
"What values are at stake and what is the cost of making the wrong choices in the short term?"
Mr Reid said politicians, the judiciary and the public sector needed to "understand the depth and magnitude" of the terrorist threat facing the UK.
He said he was frustrated by the number of people who should be better informed, but "who just don't get it".
He called for a dramatic rethink of the country's security policy to fit this century, rather than base it on a framework more suited to the last century.

Border police call
Shadow home secretary David Davis said Mr Reid was right not to under estimate "the grave threat" the UK faces from terrorism, which was why the Tories had helped implement effective measures against it.
He said the government should now answer Tory calls for a UK border police force and appoint a dedicated minister for counter-terrorism.
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Hunter said Mr Reid needed to make sure the government's counter-terrorism strategy encouraged co-operation from all sections of the community, rather than undermined it.
The speech follows the latest court battle over the terror laws. The Court of Appeal judges did not quash the system of control orders, which are used to restrain terror suspects where there is not enough evidence to prosecute them.
But they said the orders applied to six suspects were so stringent they broke European laws outlawing indefinite detention without trial.
Mr Reid has now issued new orders against the men which shorten their curfews from 18 hours to 14 hours a day and relax restrictions on who they are allowed to meet.
But he said the orders were now not as restrictive as the security services believed necessary.
 
Agreed, what freedoms?

Post-WWII Britain is but a shell of its glorious past, when Brittania ruled the waves anbd the sun never set on her empire. Sad that not only has her influence in the world declined, so have the conditions under which her "subjects" live.
 
A very similar thing was stated by Tom Brokaw on live TV only hours after the 2nd WTC tower collapsed. He stated that it would now be necessary to reexamine our freedoms. I remember being livid and yelling at the TV when he said that.

Amazing how quickly some would acquiesce to the goals of the enemy.
 
I wouldnt hold your breath. HMG has got into this trouble solely because it wants, on the one hand, to hold on to its "liberal" credentials - being "considerate" on asylum issues, treating young criminals as "children", etc, and on the other wants to be seen (which, of course, is different to actually do) to do something to tackle these problems.

An example of this is the whole "control orders" farce. These men are immigrants who the Home Office gave bail conditions to without them being arrested, charged or convicted of any offence, rather than decline their asylum claims and send them back to whereever.
 
Maybe they should elect bill klinton as prime minister there. He'd fit right in.

He once said during a TV interview the 'purpose of government is to restrict the rights of citizens.'



The framers of the Constitution thought the purpose of the government was to protect the rights of its citizens.

what a despicable communist.
 
Maybe they should elect bill klinton as prime minister there. He'd fit right in.

He once said during a TV interview the 'purpose of government is to restrict the rights of citizens.'



The framers of the Constitution thought the purpose of the government was to protect the rights of its citizens.

what a despicable communist.

Or maybe they should elect Bush. He stated during an interview that it would all be easier if he were dictator.

BTW, I would love to see a link to a transcript of that interview, ya know, just to keep you honest.
 
The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people" -- Bill Clinton 1993 on MTV

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)

You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say." -- Bill Clinton in 1993, Philadeplphia

Look familiar?

What about his fatter half and her 'We are going to take things away from you for the common good." speech ?
That's all the evidence I need to convince me they are a bunch of bloody bolsheviks.
 
Yup, this is the usual recipe.

1.) Let the bad guys in via weak immigration policies.
2.) Wait for the bad guys to do their deeds.
3.) Claim there's no way to deport all the immigrants.
4.) Take freedom away from the citizens in the name of "safety."
5.) Repeat steps 1-4 over and over again...

We're seeing early symptoms here in the US also, and it's got to be pushed back. Police roadblocks to check your "papers, please" in the name of catching illegal immigrant bad guys, for example.
 
We're seeing early symptoms here in the US also, and it's got to be pushed back. Police roadblocks to check your "papers, please" in the name of catching illegal immigrant bad guys, for example.

You've got the program nailed.

But it won't be the illegal immigrant that the roadblocks are set up for. The police are more likely to be looking for "troublemakers" who have the temerity to blather about the Constitution.
 
Agreed, those of us who make the mistake of exercising our first ammendment rights and speaking out against abuses to the bill of rights are much more likely to fall under the gaze of big brother.

Small self contained communitys, existing within the larger whole, are less likely to attract the attention of the .gov Its only when scattered individuals like ourselves start talking about getting organized to take political action that the vast resources are turned loose.
 
“He who exchanges liberty for security has neither liberty nor security.”

Is it true that your schools now ban any mention of "right and wrong" and promoting "British heritage" is also verboten?

No, we're not quite that far gone. A friend of mine has a son who's just left school and I talk to him quite a bit because I helped him when he wanted to get into shooting and we often meet at the range. He often complains about how there's too much political discussion at school! He was telling me about a teacher he has who, when questioned about his political tendencies, said "Well, I'm not meant to tell you because I might warp your fragile little minds, but f*ck that, I'm a table thumping pinko and if you vote Conservative you're an idiot"*

*You should probably remember that a leftist in Europe is quite different to one in America i.e. I'd call myself a leftist, but I'm also a libertarian who supports an armed citizenry and can't abide political correctness and restrictions upon our freedoms and liberties. From what he's told me, so is this teacher. I'd quite like to meet him actually!
 
Terror 'may force freedom curbs'
The greatest force of terror in the UK today is comrade Blair and his cronies.
Britain might have to modify its freedoms in the short term in order to prevent their "misuse and abuse" by terrorists, John Reid has said.
Right on cue - RE: my first line above.
He conceded that was never an easy request, but it was up to everyone to ask "what price our security, at what cost can we preserve our freedoms".
This misplaced statement avoids the question of; who steered the country the direction it went to it's current state of vulnerability and weakness.
The UK faced its "most sustained period of severe threat since the end of World War II", the home secretary warned.
What he really means is since Britains first steps into political integration with the EEC.
He urged people from all communities to help by being vigilant.
Vigilant? Vigilant for what? For some more activity from Blairs bad boys kept cloistered in the safety of the Muslim Brotherhood in London? Like Akhmed Zakayev? Those before and after him? Come on Mr Reid, explain away to us, and your subjects, why these bad boys have been allowed to continue to operate in safety and undisturbed in the nation's capital all these years.
He argued, in a speech to think tank Demos, that while the police and security services were doing all they could to protect the public, they cannot be sure of stopping terrorist attacks.
Right, not with comrade Blairs convenient thugs in the Muslim Brotherhood, cloistered in continuing safety in London. I mean, of course they can not be sure.
['Not racism'] He also described migration as the "greatest challenge" to the EU, claiming that there was a need to get away from the notion that people who discuss this were somehow racist, because "they are not"
.
Enoch Powell spelled all this out several decades ago - those at the helm can not now say "we didn't know", "we could not have foreseen", etc. The nation and it's subjects were set up for this.
His words come a week after the Court of Appeal said control orders used to restrain the movements of six terror suspects broke human rights laws. As he promised to appeal against the ruling, Mr Reid said another attack on the UK was "highly likely".
Parliament could deal with this staged problem called "the courts". If most of Parliament wasn't a part of the show.
In his address, Mr Reid used stark terms to describe how today's terrorists were "unconstrained" in their intentions, by international conventions, standards or morality.
Well, having been invited in and protected by the ruling frontmen in the government going back many years, we can say exactly the same about them.
"None of us should be anything other than vigilant and that vigilance is the price of securing our freedom," he said.
This is like shoving a tiger into your home, and after it has savaged one of them, telling the rest to be "vigilant".
"While I am confident that the security services and police will deliver 100% effort and 100% dedication, they cannot guarantee 100% success.
"Our security services and the apparatus of the state, while they are an absolutely essential pre-requisite for defeating terrorism, cannot be sufficient on their own.
Right, not with their own gov frontmen having shoved the tigers into the house.
Security rethink needed
Mr Reid said the "challenge to all of us" means "we may have to modify some of our freedoms in the short-term in order to prevent their misuse and abuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy our freedoms and values in the long-term".
Yes; modify or else get fined, arrested or imprisoned - by those who oppose your fundamental values and would destroy your freedoms and values in the long-term.
Mr Reid said politicians, the judiciary and the public sector needed to "understand the depth and magnitude" of the terrorist threat facing the UK.
What about the sources - the originating sources - of terrorism in the UK, and the progressive coddling of that threat Mr Reid? Should they not understand the depth and magnitude of that?
He said he was frustrated by the number of people who should be better informed, but "who just don't get it".
They do understand Mr Reid - but who shoved the tiger through the back door and protected it all this time?

They should get that before deciding how to deal with the overall problem.
He called for a dramatic rethink of the country's security policy to fit this century, rather than base it on a framework more suited to the last century.

Of course, a new order Mr Reid. That's surely what you are thinking of.
Border police call
Shadow home secretary David Davis said Mr Reid was right not to under estimate "the grave threat" the UK faces from terrorism, which was why the Tories had helped implement effective measures against it.
He said the government should now answer Tory calls for a UK border police force and appoint a dedicated minister for counter-terrorism.
This guy must be very young, or he is playing dumb. Afterall, it was the conservative party leadership that were quick to cast a dark shadow over Enoch Powell all those years ago, and it was the conservative party leadership that forced Margaret Thatcher to resign for her opposition to throwing the political doors wide open for EU integration and even more migration. Some people have not forgotten that, and some people do not suffer from the collective amnesia about the progression since then.
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Hunter said Mr Reid needed to make sure the government's counter-terrorism strategy encouraged co-operation from all sections of the community, rather than undermined it.
The community? How about nation.

The nation needs to make sure that a stop is put to the terror-counter-terrorism of those holding power, get their nation back, and get those out who do not belong there.

--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
------quote-------
Or maybe they should elect Bush. He stated during an interview that it would all be easier if he were dictator.

BTW, I would love to see a link to a transcript of that interview, ya know, just to keep you honest.
-------------------

I call BS.

Was Bush actually proposing that we institute a dictatorship here? Or was he just commenting on the difficulty of maintaining security while preserving freedoms?

And while we're demanding links, I'd like to see one on this quote. You know, just to keep you honest.
 
To be honest, England was never that "free".

More of an upscale serfdom really.

Doubt that the locals will notice much.


G
 
It's a wonder you can ever find any allies you deem worthy enough to share a battlefield with freedom-loving Americans.
 
We shared the battlefield with Stalin, too. That's neither here nor there.

I am saddened by the state of British citizens' rights, and even more so because my awareness of what is happening was first informed, many years ago, by my reading British author George Orwell. He was a prophet, as it turns out. Surveillance cameras, newspeak, thought crimes...

By no means does that mean that I am critical of the victims of this tragedy. My parents were young children in Austria in 1938. Far be it from me to blame the victims.
 
The price of freedom is as high as it ever was. That means not only brave soldiers paying the ultimate price for us on the battlefield occasionally. It means that some criminals do not get punished or caught in advance of their crimes and that we must accept as our own the responsibility for protecting ourselves and ensuring our own safety -- not the government.

However, the [perceived] value of freedom appears to be at an all time low. :mad:
 
Part of the problem in Britain may lie in the fact that they gave the hate screaming "Imams" and their various mosque affiliates too much leeway, for too many decades.

If you scream it loud enough, and long enough, people who can identify with you will start to listen and believe it. The UK just lets them do it, never imagining that some 20 somethings that had been indoctrinated with this crap for years would kill people because of it.

This is where homegrown terrorists are born.
 
Just a dude, I think it has more to do with the growing PC culture (and laws that enforce it) that punish those who speak AGAINST these nutballs. Freedom of Speech has to go both ways. Problem is, in the UK and here too, we can protect the speech of such people, while subtly or overtly suppressing the speech of their opponents (the sane majority).
 
Mk VII, you knew we were misanthropic old curmudgeons when you joined. ;)
If it makes you feel any better, we don't like anybody all that much.



BTW, folks, I recall the quote when Bush said it would be easier to be a dictator. It was an off-the-cuff joke in response to a press question about getting some proposal or another through the Congress. The full line was something like, "Well, it'd be easier if I were Dictator instead of President, but there's a reason why the Congress is there and they have to go through their process."

There was nothing ominous about it, at least to me. Maybe that was because I was able to see the video.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top