Facism! I cry Fascism!

David Cameron will today order security services to ditch the approach that ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone’.

I’ve no problem at all with the security services having a peek at people who are obeying the law. That’s what they’re there for, after all.

But it’s the next implication that has me crying Fascism! That the law will then be turned upon those obeying the law. This is straight out of the Ritchie, Margaret Lady Hodge playbook. They apply it to tax law: merely obeying what’s on the law books is not good enough for them. They want to be able to denounce anyone doing something they don’t like. So here is the danger with what Cameron is doing. Except he’s applying it to the criminal law, possibly. A much, much, more worrying thought.

If people are obeying the law then that’s the end of the matter. Because that’s what the law is: you can’t do this and this and this but if you’re not doing those things then you’re fine.

Have I said that Cameron can fuck off about this yet?

19 thoughts on “Facism! I cry Fascism!”

  1. I do agree with you to an extent. However in the past we let people like Abu Qatada in peace provided that they obeyed law with regard to the UK. We didn’t mind that he called for murder in Egypt which was an offence here but as didn’t affect us we didn’t care.

  2. The Abu Qatada case is a catalogue of state attempts to use him, screw ups and faffing about. It’s much more complicated than the law saying no or not minding what he said.

  3. It’s alarming, yes. But it depends what ‘leave you alone’ means. If it means ‘take action or encourage new laws specifically to target you’, then yes.

    If it means ‘rather than stay silent, we rebut your words with more words’ then have at it.

  4. Well, I didn’t vote for him.

    His reeling off a list of “values” including “freedom of speech” and “the rule of law” as justification for this is particularly ironic.

  5. It didn’t take long for the other shoe to drop. Or rather one of them . The twat probably has a collection larger than the Marcos woman.
    What is he babbling about? Prob you will be arrested if you live in the same street as whichever poor halfwit is being arrested for terrorism this week (see yesterdays ginger nutter) because you had not acted as a police informer. The arrogant tone of BlueRinse’s pronouncements shows why he deserved to have been blubbering on Thursday every bit as much as Milliboy.

    If this were a promise of anything good we can be 100% certain he would break it. As it is it seems most likely to be used to bolster the PC tyranny he and his Guardian pals are so fond of.

  6. The article is thin on details. The only clear new law is this:

    It includes powers to close premises, including mosques, used by fanatics to foster extremism

    I can’t see closing a room making a big difference in a world of online chatrooms.

  7. I’m surprised that “Neo-Nazis” are actually still a major problem requiring a change in the law. I suppose they were included just for balance, unless legions of aspiring SS are planning soon to walk the streets.

    Originally secret services were secret, and to some extent they snooped outside the law, which also acted as a barrier to going too far (spying on everyone, for instance). Having foolishly put the spooks on the statue books as the “Security Services” (when did that start?), governments now must give them some plausibly legal foundations for their snooping and other activities.

  8. Have I said that Cameron can fuck off about this yet?

    Once is unlikely to be sufficient.

    Ian B

    I didn’t vote for him.

    preceded, on a tea shirt, with “Don’t blame me,”

  9. One of Britain’s most notorious liars sets out to rescue the values of “one nation”-by getting the police to harass law abiding citizens. Democracy’s buffoon.

  10. Get your self a phone/camera and make sure if a copper so much as looks at you it’s on film.

    In the US (and thus more and more over here) the attitude by TPTB and their costumed henchmen is “the Law doesn’t matter or is what we say it is”. That still breaks down when their various (and often brutal) capers meet daylight on video. It isn’t yet a guarantee of safety or justice but it is putting a spoke in the wheel of tyranny. Even with a corrupt Judiciary audio-visual evidence is hard to get around. The old demo-cons of “this is a nation of laws” and “no one is above the law” still have some force in the light of day. The authorities cannot just repudiate those concepts openly without buying themselves a world of trouble even today.

    We will see how Camorgueron’s new world of zealous bluebottlrey stands up to daylight.

  11. Mr E yes, esp. if jury trial can be maintained. But…how long before filming a state enforcer becomes a “security risk”?

  12. To go down the route of brazen tyranny is always a possibility –but it is much more difficult than a system where you have the mugs conned that you rule by consent. To keep up the latter pretense they have to maintain legal theatre to some degree. If Rolf etc had had mini-cams on their person every moment of the 1970s rousting them into jail would have been pretty impossible.

  13. “I can’t see closing a room making a big difference in a world of online chatrooms”: no but it might reduce the illegal parking in the vicinity, which the Forces of Law and Order are too feartie to stop.

  14. The only silver lining is that if 12 backbench Tories of the old school can be arsed, they can tell him to fuck off and actually make it happen.

    It shows how weird all parties have become, to regard a wafer-thin majority as a resounding victory.

  15. Everyone knows the one about everything being allowed in Britain unless it’s specifically prohibited, and vice versa in Germany.

    The next line is that everything is allowed in Italy, especially if it’s specifically prohibited, whereas in the Soviet Union, everything was prohibited, especially if it was specifically allowed.

    May need revising.

  16. So Much for Subtlety

    I just wonder idly where all the people telling us we had to vote for the Tories or Ed Miliband would be passing repressive laws are?

    I am with Ian B. Don’t blame me. I told you not to vote for the other Lib-Dem party. We need to purge Cameron and return to genuine Tory values.

    I am willing to bet that if Tim is not in the first round of blogs to be served with said order, he will be in the second. After all, this may be aimed at Islamists, but with Ironman and the rest of the CiF Tendency screaming racism at the slightly provocation, Cameron will have to find some middle class White people to ban. And there just ain’t no genuine Fascists in Britain outside the main parties.

  17. >The only silver lining is that if 12 backbench Tories of the old school can be arsed, they can tell him to fuck off and actually make it happen.

    Except the labour party will almost certainly vote in favour as well, as they tend to be even more enthusiasticly authoritarian than the Tories.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *