Lockdown to Save Our Planet

 We are staring at the extinction of the humanoid species. Our actions have set in motion a series of positive feedback loops. The Arctic water are warming, Greenland icecap is imminently melting, the Gulf Stream is on the brink of shutting down and extreme weather events are now the new norm, be it fire, heat, rain, tornadoes or even cold. Extreme rising sea levels, no longer modest rises, will displace tens of millions from low lying areas, many coastal cities will become uninhabitable, extreme events will destroy food production for hundreds of millions dependant on their yearly crop. To make matters worse we are dumping increasing amounts of waste and pollutants that leach out threatening the health and reproductive success of the wildlife we rely on. As a consequence biodiversity is under such an onslaught that it unable to respond to such rapid climate changes. Added to which we are cutting down the heart and lungs of the planet that might absorb or at least abate some of these extreme events. We in the rich West have plundered the Planet for stuff to feed our insatiable appetite for novelty whilst two thirds of the Worlds population, living a subsistence life, have no hope of ever improving their lot to even a fraction of what we in the West take as our inalienable birthright. Our Planet just does not have the capacity to let them achieve even a modicum improvement to their subsistence living. Yet meeting the Wests insatiable demand for yet more brighter, glossier, snappier, trendier must haves, the rich west are so close to exhausting the supply of the rarer elements. Extraction continues unabated in yet ever more fragile environments. This relentless thirst for more yet more consumer consumption is exhausting out Planet. It is not just the extraction of course but the energy required to then turn these raw materials into the so desirable baubles We have to stop consuming.  The wheels of the financial systems which support our civilisation are about to fall off. We have so abused this Planet that the very environment we depend on is changing in ways that may well be unsupportable to human life. If, and a big if, we havent previously killed each other in the scramble to retain some of our assumed rights or claiming the last of what might still be habitable or usable.

This is not some far off speculation. At this very moment we are recording such rapid increases in positive feedback loops, within those that are known, whilst there are many other loops still to be discovered. Climate changes are occurring at an accelerated rate which greatly exceeds even the more pessimistic climate change models. We are way past the point where governments prepare policies and discussion papers, way beyond waiting for the international agreements on what climate change limiting measure they might introduce some time soon. We are even beyond the point of implementing an (already?) agreed government action plan. We, that is you and I, need to take action right now. No need to seek permission, as individuals it is up to each of us to change our life style right now. If our children are to have some hope of a survivable future. We each must go into a Lockdown to Save Our Planet today. No more flying, no more driving, no more consuming. We have to go back to living local, self-sufficiency, no more taking out or extracting from the Planet that which cannot be replaced within our lifetime. No more flying novel fruits, out of season storing, warehouse, handling, distributing and selling just to tempt a jaded palate. No more discarding last seasons to buy this years newest twist. No more extracting materials then using huge amounts of energy to convert them into something convenient. Instead we must reconstitute existing products that have already been fashioned, but now abandoned in this changed world, into something lasting and useful. Recycling but big scale, think all the empty factories, aeroplanes, cars. So much material to be creative and technically innovative about without plundering the Planet from yet more new material or requiring yet more energy to convert. Our cyber infrastructure does give me pause for concerns. Huge data stores consume vast amount of energy and the hardware used requires exotic and increasingly rare minerals to make them. Yet this crucial moment is when we need to be in a joined up world, sharing problems, seeking clever answers and checking that all are benefiting equitably, not being left behind. So an exception? Maybe. One existing resources which we have in abundance is decades of landfill. We have to get smart and learn how to extract from our past landfill those scarce, non-renewable resources rather than plunder anew. We have to get back to limiting our living to that which our Planet can afford to offer, without detriment to its essential wild spaces, without compromising the health of all our flora and fauna nor denying other populations their right to comparable standards.  That is how our ancestors lived for ten of thousands of years. We have to go back to nurturing our Planet, living within that which it can offer without detriment, when it will then respond and payback in dividends. Act now and we might have a chance as a species to survive, your choice. Live or Consume? We cannot do both.

Surrender to Stupidity

The Surrender Bill is getting a lot of bloated attention. Just pause for a second. The executive head of our democratic parliament, our Prime Minister, is rubbishing his parliament that has democratically decided that we must not leave the EU without a deal. If he feels so strongly against it, he should present a counter Bill to nullify it. But of course he cannot, as he does not have a majority in the House nor within his own Party.

Bluff and bluster may be a successful at a personal level but you cannot run a country by bluff and bluster. In a sales pitch you might get away with pretending you will just walk away. But not at National levels. The bluff that UK will walk without agreeing a deal is utter nonsense. The EU knows it, most of the country knows it, so why discredit your integrity by pretending to hold an impossible position. The rest of the sane world knows there is too much at stake. The breakup of the United Kingdom for one. Turning our backs on our closest neighbours is another. Unravelling 40 years of close integration is another, but the list goes on and on. At some point an agreement with the EU will have to reached. Not facing that reality, holding up the pretence of another (unspecified) option will result in a lot of pain and damage.

Another bluff tactic is to claim that the Country has Decided. No it did not. Half the country definitely did not decide to leave. It is worth recalling that the ripples of a divided nation, catholic v protestants lingers on even to this day. Our Nation is divided over the EU. As in all inflamed disputes, in the end the opposites just have to sit down, talk and reach an agreement. That is what a Prime Minster worthy of the position should be doing, Not fanning the flames of discord.

As our Prime Minster continues to fail to recognise and respond to the deep division within our country, what are we to do? Twiddle our fingers whilst grabbing unquestioningly every soothing soundbite offered, lap up all the electoral gift baubles as if they were substantive and a real, or do we demand better? Is the retention of a United Kingdom worth fighting for? Are we really content to retreat to a gated community to keep all those unpleasant neighbours at arm’s length, do we really want to surrender having any voice in the world that is listened to? Do we want a fantasy future or face up to the hard issues before us? For that we need a Parliament that reflects all of us and a Prime Minster who has integrity, able to seek accord and with a vision which does resonate with our core values.

Blinkered BBC

The BBC, in all of its various outputs, goes out of its way to demonstrate no political bias and senior management will vigorously defend their record, over the longer term if not by each hour. No issue there. However they have consistently fallen hook line and sinker over the last two years into the Farage trap and parrot fashion repeat his selected media slants as if that was fact and widely endorsed. No it isn't. So what is going on? The Farage emotive shorthand is that Britain has decided to leave the EU. That is the starting point, the underlying premise of all subsequent interviews and rationale for the oh so many programmes devoted to questioning and analysing the 'Brexit' debates. Britain most clearly did not decide. There was vote and there was a result, a split country, half and half with the leave side having the 'majority' by such a small margin. So small a margin that could, would, maywell have shifted several times either way in the space a couple of days depending who was sick, recovered,  whop left or came back from holiday, was or wasn't in a meeting elsewhere, submitted a spoilt paper or just was confused at the time. Such a small margin does not support the claim that "Britain decided". It suits Farage's soundbite politics to wrap it up so, but the BBC should not have been drawn in and persistently using that phrase as their reference point. It is wrong and slants all sequential comments.

This vote was not a vote for the first past the post two party election. This vote does not result in sequences of measure being put before Parliament to consider, reflect and endorse. This vote does not time lapse after five years for the country to reconsider and possibly make a different choice. No this vote has finality, the either country leaves the EU or stays within the EU. No wonder with a split Nation, referred to but only in the context of the 'decision to leave', the nation and its political party representatives cannot arrive an outcome that looks bothways and suits those that want to remain and those that want to leave. That is the issue the BBC should be presenting, not as a footnote but as the premise for all programming formats. Instead they capitulate to the Farage soundbite. So wrong.

The referendum designed as a sticking plaster over the Conservative Parties divisions was deeply flawed in its concept. But that is now history and we are stuck with an inconclusive outcome that is defying all attempts to bridge an impossible divide across the nation. So how should the BBC have responded and demonstrated its impartiality? If you can accept, which I cannot, that there was a decision with the merest of margins then the BBC should have setout to question the 'Remain in EU' benefits and show how they could be better served by 'Leave the EU'. Equally they should have tested all the supposed benefits from leaving the EU. Those two approaches should have been the rockbed for all programming decisions. Instead the BBC defers to the Farage rhetoric, and follows his lead and agenda. Why on earth is so much BBC media time allocated to "No-Deal Brexit", that Farage construct, dismissed by anyone who has a glimmer of understanding of the world political arena.

In a balanced society the high-octave emotive promises offered by 'Brexit' should have been countered by rigorous matter-of-fact explanations of the benefits that flow out of our EU membership. I can scarcely recollect any discussions where these pro-EU arguments were presented. The only counter, the bias balance to this Brexit posturing was by putting 'Remain' spokespersons on the backfoot to respond to the latest outrageous fantasy claims put out by the Brexit flavour of the moment face. Almost all Brexit stories were led by a Brexit at any cost spoke person, so all those Tories who clearly didn't want Brexit at any cost, all those Tories who wanted to remain within the EU, got scant coverage. Or if given a voice only to have them then counter the latest wild assertions. Bias? Oh yes. The BBC has signally failed to get above this story and set it into the so needed bigger picture. Without the BBC's leadership what chance does the nation have to absorb the real, not the emotive issues, and reach a consensus understanding where the Nation might be able to unite behind it. The BBC has let us all down spectacularly in our hour of most need.
.

Brexit - My Take

The Conservative Party was unable to resolve the rift between the two fractions sheltering under its collective banner. There were those looking back wanting to relive the Empire glory days and those looking forward to Europe to grow a new future for Britain. The solution they came up with to re-unite the Conservative Party was a referendum. As this was more to do about patching over the divisions within the single party state than determining Britain's future there was no need for finesse. So a simple  question having a yes/no answer with no minimum threshold was sufficient. As it turned out the country at large reflected the single party state, divided, more or less down the middle. Not a clear cut majority, some parts of the country more or less in favour than other parts. Technically the vote count gave victory to the Brexit, but a victory over a very divided country without a clear ground swell of opinion. The yes/no question was stripped down to its most simplistic, leave or stay. Stripped of any suggestion of complications, consequences or hard choices between conflicting aspirations. Simple, just leave or stay.

Disappointingly the campaigns leading up to the referendum presented either a cake or a pie. The cake option was promoted with fulsome promises of wonderful slices to be enjoyed. The pie option challenged some of the cake slice toppings but did not promote the pie as a better, healthier and more sustainable offering. Worst of all, no one stood up and said hurrah for Europe, with Europe we can be stronger and within Europe we can make change happen to strengthen the pie we want to work with. So the cake with all its tempting deliciousness won. The tragic irony is that this win did not meld the Conservative Party. The referendum turned out to be an empty gesture. The split within the single party state has grown worse if anything, with the PM frantically trying to apply sticking plaster over the increasing rifts. Even the £1B bribe to the NI DUP party has failed to secure her a safe voting base. Britain of course is now stuck with the win/not win referendum outcome. Only now is a degree of clarity emerging about how pitiful the slices out of the cake may well turn out to be. That cake that was held up to be so luxurious and unctuous is turning out to be frugal snack and the pie that was scorned offers to be far more substantial.

One of the more attractive slices of cake offered is for Britain to shake free the EU shackles and sign up free trade deals with the rest of the World. I hear it often quoted that Britain has the fifth largest economy in the world. An economy that can only sustains the illusion of prosperity by building ever more houses for investment. Note, not homes for those unable to get on the housing ladder with their 1.8 children (50% in single parent families), just 4-5 executive houses as investment sinkholes wherever the returns are at their greatest. An economy that, according to a UN report is in breach of its Human Rights requirements for many of its underprivileged classes. An economy that is unable to complete the fitout of the second, let along the third of its new largest aircraft carrier and cannot afford to purchase the planes to fly off them. From this sceptred isle we appear to think the Worlds big trading Nations are queuing up to rush and complete amicable trading agreements with us. USofA cannot wait to dump all their surplus produce on us, produce made without restrictions of all those irksome animal welfare concerns or consequential environmental damage. Or China, the unproclaimed leader of the World that has hoovered up the rights to all the rarer elements in this planet is not going to be bothered about any petty limits, or exchange terms we might waft at them. Is it only me that can get real? Or do you all share a scepticism that the World is not panting to do free trade deals with us. Our importance as a world trading nation are over together with the Empire that first sustained it. 

No, our strength now lies with our close neighbours across the channel. Those neighbours that we share so much history, culture and expectations with. Working together we, the combined nations, can be a world force to reckoned with, a force that can require its terms to be heeded. That can make a stand and demand progress towards worthy aspirations. Together Britain can grow strong and can make its own unique voice heard, not just heard but count for the greater good, of us and this planet we have to care for. The is the pie that is on offer. That is the pie we must seize. That is the pie that must offered to the people again so this time they can make an informed choice. A choice made whilst knowing full well of the consequences that flow out of it. Let the single state party sort out its own mess and leave us to direct Britain's future prosperity.

Enriched by Public Services

Only the crassest and the most shallow minded consider that everything costs and therefore everything must pay its way. A way of thinking as befits a grocers daughter or some similar philistine banal mindset. We have to lift our heads up out of the mud our feet are wading through to see higher aspirations, to have hope for a better future, to be inspired by the achievements of those around us and most of all to have a vision for how all on this planet can experience a better life. Big dreams. In the real world there is not unlimited money and there are a thousand competing priorities. Put cost as your first and overriding starting point and the dreams will never even emerge. But without dreams we can never realise a better quality of life no matter how that quality might be imagined. Cost and payback are not the determining factor in a civilised society. Never to be ignored, always with a watchful eye but not the bottom line criterion that they have become.

I am ranging way beyond culture the obvious candidate for cost cutting. Yes culture of course to lift the spirit, to raise the hope even just to endeavour to reach beyond the immediate now, we need arts, we need crafts, we need music, we need graphics in all its forms to give shape and meaning to otherwise vague ephemeral glimpses beyond the mundane over familiar present day. Can we agree that culture, with its high costs and indeterminate payback, is a given must have, that frames us as civilised and not savages? If you think it is a no, then this site really is not for you, you must look elsewhere.

What I want to promote is the concept of service as an aspirational tool to achieve a better quality of life, for all. 'Service' this word is heavily overworked and has an extraordinary wide range of meanings and connotations. The common usages I want to focus on is, according to the sOED, 'Service' as conduct tending to the welfare or advantage of another and 'Service' as a branch of public employment of such body concerned with some particular work or the supply of some particular need. Service in today's climate is denigrated and demeaned, seen at best as a charity cause to help out those pitiful people too poor to do better. It didn't use to be like that, service industries were once seen as the powerhouse to lift and raise our aspirations as a nation and power us to a better more modern way of life. These are not bad or irrelevant objectives even in today's world? Being able to offer service to an individuals must be the hallmark of a democratic civilised society. Helping those in their moment of need until they can strike out confidently on their own again. Sounds like the sort of place I would like to be.

Maybe a ticket office manned to help cut through the complexities of tariffs, timetable and alternate conflicting options. Maybe a visible approachable and friendly policeman able to calm, reassure or direct, that would be nice. Of course the more obvious of a nurse with time to reassure, talk and to really understand what is troubling a patient. Or a teacher able to spend time one to one to help that one child overcome their confusion about some new topic. Service providers who are not seen as cost centres, who are required to prove their worth on a daily basis, who are not required to complete offers of help to some predetermined timeslot. The worth is there in payback dividends but not in profit returns the bean counters understand. So the list can go on, Tax Collectors able to spend time to understand the exception's and find more fitting rules, or JobCentre Advisers with the skills and time to actually understand a seekers capabilities with the realistic knowledge of local opportunities. Indeed wherever we as individuals interface with the providers of our wants or needs then there is an essential service input, an input which may not show a profit but certainly oils the wheels and helps society to move smoothly. What price do you put on that?

Services also include all the utility services, water, electricity, gas, sewers, telephones, refuse collection and the mail. Once state run they were sold off, amid a great fanfare, to companies whose driving force is profit first. Yet they are essential services, services that are at the foundation of the wellbeing to our UKplc. If any of these cinderella services are not there in place with the right capacity our ability as a nation to grow and develop is hampered. Look no further than the stranglehold the provision of highspeed broadband has on any commercial enterprise that is not located in a major conurbation. UKplc is held to ransom because it is 'not profitable' to provide in these smaller communities. Utility Services sold off because in some naive tunnel vision view of some other fantasy world, competition equates to efficiency. No. Equally, state run enterprise does not mean inefficient and extravagant. So make your choice, do you run them for profit for the benefit of shareholders, or, run them well for the benefit of the society that relies on them?

Finally, Public Service, another broad wide ranging category, now much maligned and held in disdain. Once the pinnacle of UKplc governance, held in esteem around the world, for its expertise, for its detachment and for its impartiality. What happened? Did we run out of good enough scholars to enter the civil services. No, of course not. A deliberate decision was taken to politicise the output of the civil service, overturning centuries of impartial advice. In this new way of thinking, unless civil services responses fully reflected the political aspirations of the government of the time, it was rejected and overturned. Such a small seemingly innocuous step but having catastrophic impact. Now there is no government edict, no report, no forecast, nothing emanating from government that can be trusted or relied on. Everything has to viewed with suspicion for political bias. There is no objectivity, there is no impartiality, everything is tainted with political expediency. Not any way to run a company let alone UKplc.

One woman overturned centuries of governance evolution and wrought chaos. Benefits? Once the initial feeding frenzy for the 'free' goodies on offer had subsided, are we better off, driven by profit for shareholder benefit? Have we totally lost the concept of service to the people to enable them to grow and blossom? Bring back Service to the People, bring hope for a better future for us all.

Normal Distorted

We live in a hyperPC (politically correct) world where we are all afraid of causing offence to one or other minority group by speaking out of turn. The media is fired up to seize on any example and balloon it into yet another demonstration of prejudice / victimisation / social discrimination with all the hullabaloo that follows. Quite right too, we all have the greatest sympathy for the oppressed or abused and willingly offer compassion to the underdog.

My problem is that by constant headlining of the trials and travails of these minorities distorts our sense of the normal. Whether it is single mums, gay partners wanting a child, disabled access, religious rites, whatever the subject the focus on their rights and proper concerns creates the impression that this is a concern for all of our society. No it is not! It is not 'normal' to be a single mum and raise children on your own. They are a minority group. The media may choose to focus on single mums for the instant high emotive appeal and easy message they make. But that creates a distorted view. The majority normal group are couples raising a family under one roof. That should be our datum of judgement and expectation. Not the travails of the single parent. Sure, some single mums are truly victims and deserve all our support but not all. Some just choose to be single for thin reasons and all the barriers should not be thrown down to help them. Our perspective that we use to for judgements should be firmly and squarely founded on the 'normal'. If the minority position overshadows and clouds our judgement we cannot come to a proper balanced view.

Gay couples, or if it comes to that post menstrual women or mid-career women coming late to conception are rich media targets to explain and justify high-tech solutions to creating new babies. But this is not the normal process. The normal way as used by the majority of adults seeking, or even just ending up with, babies, is do it the routine old-fashioned way. No scientific technology required, other than perhaps to defer the chance of success. In a world where there are just too many people having too many babies and where there are way too many babies dying for simple wants, or just as bad, babies growing up bereft of any hope of escape from intolerable conditions, why do we resort to scientific techniques to create even more? Understandably there is the scientific desire to advance our understanding and increase our skills in solving our human condition, but is that sufficient justification? Or is it driven by a selfish egoism craving for that trophy child that solidifies your status in society? By over-focussing on these minorities concerns we lose perspective and fail to consider the broader and more fundamental platform of that of the normal majority. We should be challenging the scientists right to use their ever sophisticated techniques, we should unite and focus their attention where the real creation issues are. The normal majority are getting on with it just fine.

On another tack we are a Christian based society. The overwhelming number of us subscribe to the Christian codes of conduct and moral standards. No longer are most of us practising Christian, going to church with any frequency, but the Christian background as to how our society holds together is deeply rooted in each of us. Part of that Christian background is the requirement within each of us to be tolerant and supportive of other faiths. Supportive in the narrow sense of not hindering rituals and practises of another faith but not to the extent of proactively promoting another faith. That clearly is for them. However if we take these rituals and customs of minority group faiths out of context, a minority group, and elevate each travail and setback as a challenge to the majority Christian society we again are getting the perspective out of kilter again. We are hosts to a wide range of people with a wide range of minority religious beliefs, whether Greek Orthodoxy, Jews, Seven Day Evangelist's, Muslim, Buddhist, it matters not, our duty as the host society is to be tolerant and accommodating of rituals which may appear as strange and out of place. Certainly there should be no discrimination based on a different religious belief. As guests within a host society it befalls on them as guest to constrain their beliefs and rituals, to go out and discover which of their practise cause the most unease amongst their hosts and find ways to tone it down or explain it so as to minimise the chance of causing upset. It is not for the host to set aside the majority position just to let a minority group carry on doing as it wishes regardless. If your religion requires the ritual killing of an animal, if your religion requires your girls to be genitally mutilated or submit to an arranged marriage, if your religion requires compliance with Sharia Law or your religion requires a full burka, don't expect your hosts to set aside their objectives of a free open society where women and men both have opportunities to succeed. You as a minority group in a society will have to defer to the majority expectations in the full knowledge that your desires will be met with tolerance and goodwill.

Just one final note of despair. In bald terms 20% of our populations are disabled in some degree or other and only 1% of out population are wheelchair disabled. A pretty small number, 1% against 99%, right. Disabled toilets are designed around the needs of wheelchair users as defined by the gold standard reference. Selwyn Goldsmiths 'Designing for the Disabled'. The author goes to considerable lengths to emphasis that each disabled person requirements are different and that there is no one suit all arrangement. Behold the Building Regulations lay down standardised disable toilet arrangements that are deemed to suit. Sense the irony? Of course disabled people should not be discriminated against and should be free to travel and move around freely without constraint. To counter discrimination there is a legal requirement that premises open to the public shall provide wheelchair suitable toilet facilities. That speaks for the 1%. The 99% other people also have a right to move around without constraint. The toilet they most frequently encounter in all the shops and public spaces, apart from the very few municipal conveniences left, will be designed for wheelchair disabled use. A toilet which will not suit many of the wheelchair users it is supposed to be designed to help. Wide open out doors. Extra space for a person to stand beside the wheelchair, space to side transfer from chair to seat. Hand holds, alarms, seat height heights, elbow action taps, basin and mirror height accessible from chair. Cosy for those wheelchair users that just happen to have the right handicap to suit that particular arrangement. As a member of the 18% or so of the elderly population I can confirm that the ability to hold on until a suitable public toilet can be located diminishes with age and begins to become critical. We have urgent needs to be met. Not to wait in a queue until the one oversized, occupying the space for at least two cubicles, unisex facility is free. There to be confronted with appliances set too low at that risk back damage from stooping, or fumbling with flimsy elbow fittings or even worse a toilet out of commission because the disabled friendly levers and handles just cannot cope with high public usage. It is ended up all-about-face. The majority, the normal person on the street has to accepted compromised facilities which are slewed to suit the needs of a very small minority of users.

A wide range of high principled objectives have resulted in completely distorting the wide spread recognition of what it is to be normal within the broadband of the majority. The majority now identify themselves from the narrow perspective of the small minority groups point of view. It is all an Alice in Wonderland distortion.

Right to Dissent

For many the acts or terrorists are so heinous, such a threat to civilised society, that any measures  that might thwart their evil deeds is fully justifiable. Under this blanket of fear the Government gets a free ride to introduce its innocuous sounding IPB, Investigatory Powers Bill, better and more correctly known as the snoopers charter. A Bill which grants powers that the European Court of Justice has already stated contravene basic human rights. The Government is granting itself the right to open, read and store any electronic communication it chooses, from anyone to anyone. A blanket right to listen to phone calls, read EMails, anything sent electronically is open book to them.

Totally justifiable you might say if it stops another terrorists attack that we have been warned to expect any minute. Except of course a terrorist to one party is a freedom fighter to another party. All depends on your point of view. The Establishment, the upholder of the status quo, gets to label all dissent against it. Any group of people that gather and agree to disagree with the Establishment will be labelled but that label can range from 'protesters' to 'pickets' to 'mob' to 'uprising' to 'revolution' and so on all the way out to the extreme fringes. What we do know is that the Establishment will always seeks ways to supress dissent, any dissent. The only possible restraint will be their perception of public support and how far they expect to be able to 'manage' it. By manage we mean of course to bend, swerve, falsify, distort events and news to shift perceptions.

With this snoopers charter the Establishment, our Government elected to serve us, has given itself powers which enable it to monitor all dissent from what ever source and for what ever motive. Anything that suggests it is contrary to Government intentions, will be flagged. Once flagged, all participants, all associates of participants, all previously contacts of participants will be scrutinised for possible intents. All their past and present actions and comments will be reviewed in the light of possible threat, signs of contrary thoughts, evidence of lack of support for the Government aspirations and will be re-examined for assumed indicators of future actions. The data mining, the algorithms, the 'Case Officer'  will be working with so much information there will no scope for subtleties, for nuances or even common sense. So that jest, that floating of an idea, that game of devils advocate, that day dreaming, that idle speculation are all at risk of being taken out of context, just bundled up as proof against you. Just remember you cannot ever prove innocence. 

With the power to collect and interpret as they choose ideas at their very point of inception the Government gives itself the ability to step in and take avoiding actions. Actions that can range from isolating individuals, surveillance, planting of decoys, warnings all the way to arrest search or other life disruptions. They put themselves in the position to totally control any developments as the initiating ideas and membership grows. They are all seeing, all hearing and only they get to decided on the rights or wrongs.

If it stops another terrorist its okay then? Any dissent? You may not agree with the Coal Miners actions to save their industry.  You may not agree with the sit-in at Greenham Common. You may not agree with the HS2 protests. You may not agree with collect actions against the Single Past the Post system. You may not agree with the discontinuation of the Monarchy. You may not agree to bring an end to Party Politics and reinstate direct and accountable democracy. But you must agree the right to dissent from the Government is paramount. Dissent which can only be by collective action, actions that may fly close or even beyond what the Government of the day decrees legitimate. We should never ever give up our right to revolution as a final resort. Our right to collective action should be free of Establishment intimidation. Our friends and all the people we come into contact with should never be put under the microscope of suspicion just because we choose to dissent. Any more than our own innocent pasts should never be subjected to prejudiced retrospection just because we shared an EMail with the parent of our daughters friend who just happened to be radical. Dissent is what keeps us safe not the Snoopers Charter.