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.
Showing posts with label monarchy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label monarchy. Show all posts
Wednesday, 16 March 2016
Saturday, 1 March 2014
My island person
I had always understood that my one inviolate sanctuary, where I had to account to no one, were the thoughts in my mind. It seems that just because they can our Government have decreed that our personal thoughts are too important and must be monitored. Not just monitored of course, but reacted to should they imply what they consider to be inappropriate. Over any period a gamut of thoughts surge through my mind, shape shifting, getting stronger, weaker, changing focus, convolving to tangent ideas, narrowing down to a focus then off again. To manage my thoughts, to challenge them to see whether there is any substance in them, to consolidate them so they can be subjected to review, I need to try to set the more important ones down. Many people need to share ideas, to test the air, to see where the consensus lies, to confirm a mutual concurrence, to reassure a commonality of experience. Whatever, people chatter, nowadays they bounce words around, just a flux of ideas bouncing around responding to or creating stimuli for other ideas or tired old just going round doing the rounds. Our Government have given themselves the tools and taken the right to monitor all this electronic chatter, shifting for data trends, hotspots and of course making judgements on inappropriate ideas, who might be making them and jumping to (informed?) guesses on possible outcomes.
It is crystal clear to me that there are three key distinct stages, the initial thought which then translates into an intention and finally becomes an idea that is implemented. That tip over point, no longer an abstract thought but an actual observable committed deed that can be held up, scrutinised and the perpetrators of it held to account, for good or bad. So amongst the medley of thoughts that rummage around in my head are the concern about the homeless, hankering for expensive kit and annoyance at a prominent role model so shamefully brushing aside any self-restraint. These shapeless thoughts morph into ill-defined intentions; to donate 10% of my income to charity; to become a millionaire and to proactively promote a Republic State when Prince Charles gets to succeed.
With their routine surveillance of all us, our government monitors may well pick up on all these intentions of mine and flag me as a person who needs to closely watched. Pre-emptively, so they can get their water cannon in place before any protest kicks off, for the security of the greater good, of course. But intentions can be all, or more often, nothing, anything from empty boasts, still born at inception all the way to imminent implementation over a timescale of immediate to never in a million lifetimes. Logistically how are our government monitors to evaluate me, along with all the other huge number of daily potential targets? No matter how sophisticated their data mining is in identifying hotspot, fluxes of interest there is no algorithm to convert an averaged potential into an actual tipping point of action. Knowing with statistical certainty what the median of that personality profile may do, does not translate to the actual behaviour of any one individual in that sample. Whilst we may all conform to some stereotype or other we are each unique individuals with our own unique set of reactions and triggers. We are not interchangeable, I may be similar to you in shared interests but my responses will produce a different outcome to yours.
Now my ill-defined intentions may spark off a search for information to firm up my intentions into plausible courses of action. Still no commitment, still on the fence, open minded just looking around to see what options are out there. My wish to donate to charity might take me from the usual frontline providers to looking into the politics of poverty, how it arises and how others think Society needs to change to minimise poverty. My intention to become a millionaire may take me quickly from evaluating all the free-ride tickets games of chance, to assessing the distribution of wealth and who controls access to it, to spending a lot of time in my local Banks getting to know all the front office staff on familiar terms. As only a tepid monarchist I will easily find all the other dissent groups who oppose the monarchy and very easily become familiar with all the alternate society models together with all various routes, tacit to active dissent, as ways of changing the status quo. With such an array of potentially highly suspect contacts and potential alliances with groups out to thwart government authority I must surely pose a security risk? With all those alarm bells ringing how is any risk analyst going to know with any credence whether I have become radicalised or remain aloof to counter cultures? A presumption of guilt unless proven otherwise can only have one outcome, a ballooning of potential targets followed by a ever burgeoning security monitoring service increasingly hyper-active and hyper-sensitive.
The only reliable safety valve we have, is the community we live within. That community has a past knowledge, a current expectation and a fairly robust future prediction of where I am and what I might be capable of at any period of time. No amount of data trawling can get anywhere near close to that level of community introspection. There is a catch, of course, as being one of us, part of their community, the community will cut me slack and make allowances for me, if challenged by Them (the Them of an outside of the community authority), for some transgression. A level of latitude that would not have been offered had I transgressed against the Us of the Community. An insider Us is protective of the outsider Them, (think again about a Locally Based Policemen being one of us as versus a visiting Policemen coming in from Them of the outside).
Intentions are ephemeral, to chase the ephemera of electronic chatter is as mindless as the Inquisitors chasing down Witches. Instead of yesterdays Witches we have the now current bogey of the Terrorist. Prove to me you a not a Terrorist is just as inane as proving I not a Witch! Only tangible discrete actions can be examined, challenging intentions leads to only to the morass. Anything that distracts or diffuses from that key transition point when an intention morphs into an action is to be deplored. When my charity intention is translated into actual action, dropping a 50p coin into a tin; hoisting a republican flag in my garden or strapping on a pretend body bomb to hold a Bank hostage, then you need to stay alert, to be on your marks. Not wasting resources chasing fantasy ghosts of your own creation. What we do all have to fear and remain ever vigilant to is the maverick loner. The loner living beyond reach of the community he lives within. Rather than expend wasted resources monitoring all electronic chatter, far, far better by miles is to trust in the local community. For the community to know and police their members. Do everything conceivable to reinforce, encourage and dissipating culture barriers so the connections within any community between its members, can flourish.
In the end, this is the only reliable safety net we have. Meanwhile I must have the freedom to think the unthinkable, so I can arrive independently at my own moral judgements, yet safe, with the knowledge that the community I live amongst will keep me rooted in what is acceptable. No amount of electronic eavesdropping while ever provide a better secure safety net.
It is crystal clear to me that there are three key distinct stages, the initial thought which then translates into an intention and finally becomes an idea that is implemented. That tip over point, no longer an abstract thought but an actual observable committed deed that can be held up, scrutinised and the perpetrators of it held to account, for good or bad. So amongst the medley of thoughts that rummage around in my head are the concern about the homeless, hankering for expensive kit and annoyance at a prominent role model so shamefully brushing aside any self-restraint. These shapeless thoughts morph into ill-defined intentions; to donate 10% of my income to charity; to become a millionaire and to proactively promote a Republic State when Prince Charles gets to succeed.
With their routine surveillance of all us, our government monitors may well pick up on all these intentions of mine and flag me as a person who needs to closely watched. Pre-emptively, so they can get their water cannon in place before any protest kicks off, for the security of the greater good, of course. But intentions can be all, or more often, nothing, anything from empty boasts, still born at inception all the way to imminent implementation over a timescale of immediate to never in a million lifetimes. Logistically how are our government monitors to evaluate me, along with all the other huge number of daily potential targets? No matter how sophisticated their data mining is in identifying hotspot, fluxes of interest there is no algorithm to convert an averaged potential into an actual tipping point of action. Knowing with statistical certainty what the median of that personality profile may do, does not translate to the actual behaviour of any one individual in that sample. Whilst we may all conform to some stereotype or other we are each unique individuals with our own unique set of reactions and triggers. We are not interchangeable, I may be similar to you in shared interests but my responses will produce a different outcome to yours.
Now my ill-defined intentions may spark off a search for information to firm up my intentions into plausible courses of action. Still no commitment, still on the fence, open minded just looking around to see what options are out there. My wish to donate to charity might take me from the usual frontline providers to looking into the politics of poverty, how it arises and how others think Society needs to change to minimise poverty. My intention to become a millionaire may take me quickly from evaluating all the free-ride tickets games of chance, to assessing the distribution of wealth and who controls access to it, to spending a lot of time in my local Banks getting to know all the front office staff on familiar terms. As only a tepid monarchist I will easily find all the other dissent groups who oppose the monarchy and very easily become familiar with all the alternate society models together with all various routes, tacit to active dissent, as ways of changing the status quo. With such an array of potentially highly suspect contacts and potential alliances with groups out to thwart government authority I must surely pose a security risk? With all those alarm bells ringing how is any risk analyst going to know with any credence whether I have become radicalised or remain aloof to counter cultures? A presumption of guilt unless proven otherwise can only have one outcome, a ballooning of potential targets followed by a ever burgeoning security monitoring service increasingly hyper-active and hyper-sensitive.
The only reliable safety valve we have, is the community we live within. That community has a past knowledge, a current expectation and a fairly robust future prediction of where I am and what I might be capable of at any period of time. No amount of data trawling can get anywhere near close to that level of community introspection. There is a catch, of course, as being one of us, part of their community, the community will cut me slack and make allowances for me, if challenged by Them (the Them of an outside of the community authority), for some transgression. A level of latitude that would not have been offered had I transgressed against the Us of the Community. An insider Us is protective of the outsider Them, (think again about a Locally Based Policemen being one of us as versus a visiting Policemen coming in from Them of the outside).
Intentions are ephemeral, to chase the ephemera of electronic chatter is as mindless as the Inquisitors chasing down Witches. Instead of yesterdays Witches we have the now current bogey of the Terrorist. Prove to me you a not a Terrorist is just as inane as proving I not a Witch! Only tangible discrete actions can be examined, challenging intentions leads to only to the morass. Anything that distracts or diffuses from that key transition point when an intention morphs into an action is to be deplored. When my charity intention is translated into actual action, dropping a 50p coin into a tin; hoisting a republican flag in my garden or strapping on a pretend body bomb to hold a Bank hostage, then you need to stay alert, to be on your marks. Not wasting resources chasing fantasy ghosts of your own creation. What we do all have to fear and remain ever vigilant to is the maverick loner. The loner living beyond reach of the community he lives within. Rather than expend wasted resources monitoring all electronic chatter, far, far better by miles is to trust in the local community. For the community to know and police their members. Do everything conceivable to reinforce, encourage and dissipating culture barriers so the connections within any community between its members, can flourish.
In the end, this is the only reliable safety net we have. Meanwhile I must have the freedom to think the unthinkable, so I can arrive independently at my own moral judgements, yet safe, with the knowledge that the community I live amongst will keep me rooted in what is acceptable. No amount of electronic eavesdropping while ever provide a better secure safety net.
Monday, 9 April 2012
A Day of Shame
The Queen bestows the highest award in the land on the Duchess of Cornwall! A day of shame and humiliation for what was once a proud nation known for its high moral standing and lofty principles.Yet another example of how the monarchy is so out of touch with real life, as lived and experienced by ordinary people. A closet of pampered, spoilt mediocrity inbred with the delusions you always get want you want and have whatever you desire, regardless of cost or consequences.
The viper in the nest is of course the Prince, Heir Apparent, who chose to stand before the world declare his oath of marriage whilst all the while continuing with his other concealed life, with his long standing mistress. Know nothing of the mistress and have no wish to. In my book, the other woman that comes between a marriage, who wreaks a family unit and encourages a weak male to follow his lust and not his principles, is not a woman to admire or reward with high honour. This is not someone who got involved with another in a broken relationship. Oh, no. This is some one who was more than willing to stand by whilst a wife was declared to the world and then carry on regardless. To be rewarded for hanging onto her target, for not letting decency and good sense prevail, but opening herself to her suitor to ensure his continuing attention, is plain wrong. She should be sidelined by society, not shunned, but to be openly displayed that this is not how adults conduct themselves. Wallace, in contrast stood by her man but received no recognition throughout her life. What value judgements do our monarchy use to get it so consistently wrong. Other than of course that they are so wrapped up in their cosy inward looking bauble they have no comprehension about life outside it.
No doubt in the minds of the monarchy there are loads of extenuating reasons why this honour had to be given. None justify the insult now made public to all those other commoners that have been awarded an honour for truly significant contributions to life, in so many heart rending ways. A public snub, a cock of the royal snoot to all those commoners. Your well earned and well deserved award has just been trashed. These awards and honours are not the playthings of the monarchy. They used to be regarded as the ultimate honour and should be the ultimate public recognition of services, beyond the call of duty, for services rendered. Not laying on your back giving pleasure to a man who should have had the sense and decency not to have been there but back home supporting his chosen wife.
Fine, let the Prince and Duchess forgo all privileges and retire to a private life then even I could wish them well. Until they accept their lack of moral judgement they are condemned. We are living through a period where the glues that binds society together are held in contempt. Fairness, tolerance, putting others first, being true to your word, not taking advantage of the weak and vulnerable, integrity, standing up for what you believe in, dare I say it, honour, all, they all sound so old fashioned and quaint, so unfamiliar in today's rush and grab world. Yet unless we can trust that person next to us we cannot function as a society. We are going to have to rediscover these old values. We need our leaders and public figures to stand proud and affirm by their lifestyles these essential but now old fashioned sounding qualities.
The viper in the nest is of course the Prince, Heir Apparent, who chose to stand before the world declare his oath of marriage whilst all the while continuing with his other concealed life, with his long standing mistress. Know nothing of the mistress and have no wish to. In my book, the other woman that comes between a marriage, who wreaks a family unit and encourages a weak male to follow his lust and not his principles, is not a woman to admire or reward with high honour. This is not someone who got involved with another in a broken relationship. Oh, no. This is some one who was more than willing to stand by whilst a wife was declared to the world and then carry on regardless. To be rewarded for hanging onto her target, for not letting decency and good sense prevail, but opening herself to her suitor to ensure his continuing attention, is plain wrong. She should be sidelined by society, not shunned, but to be openly displayed that this is not how adults conduct themselves. Wallace, in contrast stood by her man but received no recognition throughout her life. What value judgements do our monarchy use to get it so consistently wrong. Other than of course that they are so wrapped up in their cosy inward looking bauble they have no comprehension about life outside it.
No doubt in the minds of the monarchy there are loads of extenuating reasons why this honour had to be given. None justify the insult now made public to all those other commoners that have been awarded an honour for truly significant contributions to life, in so many heart rending ways. A public snub, a cock of the royal snoot to all those commoners. Your well earned and well deserved award has just been trashed. These awards and honours are not the playthings of the monarchy. They used to be regarded as the ultimate honour and should be the ultimate public recognition of services, beyond the call of duty, for services rendered. Not laying on your back giving pleasure to a man who should have had the sense and decency not to have been there but back home supporting his chosen wife.
Fine, let the Prince and Duchess forgo all privileges and retire to a private life then even I could wish them well. Until they accept their lack of moral judgement they are condemned. We are living through a period where the glues that binds society together are held in contempt. Fairness, tolerance, putting others first, being true to your word, not taking advantage of the weak and vulnerable, integrity, standing up for what you believe in, dare I say it, honour, all, they all sound so old fashioned and quaint, so unfamiliar in today's rush and grab world. Yet unless we can trust that person next to us we cannot function as a society. We are going to have to rediscover these old values. We need our leaders and public figures to stand proud and affirm by their lifestyles these essential but now old fashioned sounding qualities.
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
Prepare for Revolution
On balance I am in favour of the monarchy, with a few adjustments and three additional functions it could be a powerhouse for the advancement of this country. Apart from one critical concern. The Prince Consort, the King to be in waiting, is not fit for purpose. Unfortunately his upbringing has left him self-obsessed and self indulgent. Enjoying the highest position of privilege and a wealthy life-style, protected from the harsh realities of everyday life whilst surrounded by a fawning coterie of advisers and assistants, that all comes with responsibilities and limitations. Unfortunately he has failed to live up to this expectation in two major irredeemable ways.
Firstly, to stand before his loyal, enthusiastic and ready to be devoted people; to enter into an oath before them, witnessed all around the World, an oath to love and cherish this woman he had chosen to marry; when it is already a palpable lie, an undertaking he never had any intention to honour, having already found the mistress he preferred, it was outrageous, exploitative and unforgivable. A shameless exploitation of public goodwill and expectations to enter into what was always going to be, from his already fulfilled desires, a shame marriage. All done to capitalise on public support for a dynasty, to conform to some outmoded convention but without a shred of honesty of intention. You cannot get more corrupt than that. It cannot be shrugged off as a young mans escapades, nothing worse than what his ancestors had done before him. This is now, the position of the monarchy is no longer absolute but as head of our country, it is the most visible and remarked representation of it. As such it must be expected to promote and present high moral standards and integrity. All woefully lacking in the Prince Consort.
Secondly, surrounded by and with access to all the best minds, research, opinions and guidance the Prince Consort could play a vital galvanising role in developing a common perception for a future Britain. Unfortunately he lacks the intellectual capacity to contain his own maudlin, romanticised retrospective view of Britain so promotes that rather than instead, choosing the best and most realistic of the opinions surrounding him, and use them to promote a new vision of Britain. Disappointing as it always is when a golden opportunity is missed by small minds unable to rise to the higher challenge, at least it is forgivable. Unfortunately our Prince Consort cannot not contain himself but must be proactive and see his simplistic historical biased view on life implemented. He actively sets out to pervert the democratic process and in doing so deny his people their opportunity to decide for themselves the outcome, in this case the Planning process. The monarchy does not and has not had direct power for a long time and for good reasons. Unfortunately our Prince lacks the sensitivity to comprehend this and, by using his privileged access to key players and opinion takers, usurps the democratic process to ensure his vision of a future Britain overturns that that his people might choose. This is a dangerous naive man who already shows he lacks the sensitivity to govern wisely and lacks the common sense to realise there are real limitations to his actions that he has to impose on himself.
The House of Windsor is not going to willingly give up their accustomed wealth, power and influence and I just cannot see a mother deciding against her son. So people, we are left with no other choice. When the Queen dies or retires it is not 'God Save the King' but rise up now and put an end to these years of servitude. Take back that which has always rightly been yours. Long Live the Revolution!
Firstly, to stand before his loyal, enthusiastic and ready to be devoted people; to enter into an oath before them, witnessed all around the World, an oath to love and cherish this woman he had chosen to marry; when it is already a palpable lie, an undertaking he never had any intention to honour, having already found the mistress he preferred, it was outrageous, exploitative and unforgivable. A shameless exploitation of public goodwill and expectations to enter into what was always going to be, from his already fulfilled desires, a shame marriage. All done to capitalise on public support for a dynasty, to conform to some outmoded convention but without a shred of honesty of intention. You cannot get more corrupt than that. It cannot be shrugged off as a young mans escapades, nothing worse than what his ancestors had done before him. This is now, the position of the monarchy is no longer absolute but as head of our country, it is the most visible and remarked representation of it. As such it must be expected to promote and present high moral standards and integrity. All woefully lacking in the Prince Consort.
Secondly, surrounded by and with access to all the best minds, research, opinions and guidance the Prince Consort could play a vital galvanising role in developing a common perception for a future Britain. Unfortunately he lacks the intellectual capacity to contain his own maudlin, romanticised retrospective view of Britain so promotes that rather than instead, choosing the best and most realistic of the opinions surrounding him, and use them to promote a new vision of Britain. Disappointing as it always is when a golden opportunity is missed by small minds unable to rise to the higher challenge, at least it is forgivable. Unfortunately our Prince Consort cannot not contain himself but must be proactive and see his simplistic historical biased view on life implemented. He actively sets out to pervert the democratic process and in doing so deny his people their opportunity to decide for themselves the outcome, in this case the Planning process. The monarchy does not and has not had direct power for a long time and for good reasons. Unfortunately our Prince lacks the sensitivity to comprehend this and, by using his privileged access to key players and opinion takers, usurps the democratic process to ensure his vision of a future Britain overturns that that his people might choose. This is a dangerous naive man who already shows he lacks the sensitivity to govern wisely and lacks the common sense to realise there are real limitations to his actions that he has to impose on himself.
The House of Windsor is not going to willingly give up their accustomed wealth, power and influence and I just cannot see a mother deciding against her son. So people, we are left with no other choice. When the Queen dies or retires it is not 'God Save the King' but rise up now and put an end to these years of servitude. Take back that which has always rightly been yours. Long Live the Revolution!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)