The government seems to have realised that its attempts to silence the internet are doomed to failure. They have come up with a new idea.
Silence inconvenient internet users instead.
In this plan you don’t have to be charged with anything, all they need do is say ‘well you might…’ and your internet use and other freedoms are hacked away. The Daily Gestapo is all for it.
For the cheeldren, as usual. Won’t anyone think of the cheeldren? Not me, it’s illegal. Also fairly sickening.
So not only do you not need to be convicted of messing with horrible unhygienic nasty noisy miniature drones, you don’t even have to be charged with it or even accused of it. The Tories have declared that if they don’t like you they will make you a pariah.
They don’t want my vote. Or yours.
There is a silver lining – even the Mail commenters have seen through this nasty power grab.
Is this a sign that the drones are waking? It’s too early to be sure but maybe…
underdogs bite upwards 
This is why I am pro EU, Strassbourg is the only thing left protecting us from democracy and politicians since Blair esmasculated The Other Place.
LikeLike
The EU is a two-edged sword. Getting out could cause as many problems as it solves, especially with the dickheads we have who’d then be in charge…
LikeLike
XX Strassbourg is the only thing left protecting us from democracy… XX
Yes, I will give you credit there! It is CERTAINLY doing THAT.
LikeLike
‘esmasculated’?!? Is Spell Check broken, sweet Jesus I hope not!? Say it isn’t so!
LikeLike
If you’re using Firefox, like me, the latest update has buggered up the spool chucker. The next update will no doubt fix it (and bugger up something else).
LikeLike
Interestingly I’ve just edited a paper about banning advertising things “for the sake of the children”. Written by a philosophy professor. I can’t share it as it’s still in the refereeing process. But one of his main issues were the questions “*does* it do harm?” and “does it do *harm* ?”
LikeLike
Should everybody be barred from politics on the grounds that they just *might* go on the fiddle?
Oh, all right, *will*.
LikeLike
I thought they had to be on the fiddle to get selected as a candidate in the first place? Just to be sure no honest ones sneak in there.
LikeLike
The lawyers will be rubbing their hands as many of these will be heading towards the European court of human rights.
LikeLike
“…. even the Mail commenters have seen through this nasty power grab.”
And that folks, is exactly what this is… a power grab. The Governments – ours and those abroad – have long sought to control the internet, a medium that was largely created and funded outside of their grasping mitts. When they’ve attempted to step into the void in the past they’ve been vigorously resisted (usually by the First Amendment armed Americans).
But our Government (both Red and Blues) have realised that ‘making law’ which curtails and controls the internet, when done under the name of security or protection, brings little complaint. So, they bring in ever more control. Bit by bit. Each one nominally to deny a freedom to the ‘bad guy of the day’ but which often also clips the free use of the internet by others. Paedos? Tick. Fraudsters? Tick. Bullying? Tick. Youngsters? Tick. Terrorists? Tick. Violent porn? Tick. Regular porn? Tick. Scammers? Tick. Private ‘but risqué’ communication between teenagers? Tick. Racism? Tick. Political speech not meeting approval? Tick. Comedy bomb threats? Tick. Telling your MP she’s fat on Twitter? Tick. Free movement of goods & services across EU borders conducted over the internet (cigs etc)? Tick. Foreign countries daring to sell stuff without adding EU VAT? Tick…. Hands up anyone not falling foul of at least one of these restrictions, which remember, are there purely because ‘your’ Government loves you?
However the above is but a side show. It matters little about the small slivers of restrictions. What matters is the big thick chunky end of the wedge where it’s accepted by many that the internet should be controlled, that it’s perfectly okay for the Government to regulate and monitor something which frankly is none of the Government’s business.
Trust me. We’re only a few steps away from the Government insisting that we ALL register our real identities before doing anything online – to protect the children/economy/national security/copyright holders obviously – and some places in the world have already attempted just that. Soon, online anonymity will only be allowed when and where the Government permits it.
LikeLike
Online anonymity? It’s not likely to be a problem 😉
I have an area manager who has not called me the same name twice and who has no apparent memory of my real name. Last time we met I was ‘Richard’. In Local Shop there are people who insist my name is ‘Alan’.
I have never invented these aliases, they came up with them for me. Why they think those names are mine is a mystery I have never bothered to try to solve.
Of course, it’s compounded by the fact that I simply answer to whatever name they call me and never correct them. As long as the pay goes into the right account (head office is a long way away, I’ve never met any of them but they get my name right!)
I’ve been in the job for a year this week and few people seem to know who I am yet.
I can now legitimately use the phrase ‘I go by many names’ and grin like the devil when I say it.
So far, only a handful know me as ‘Doctor’. When that one gets out I might well have a hell of a lot of fun with it.
LikeLike
XX Soon, online anonymity will only be allowed when and where the Government permits it.XX
A problem I see.
In Britain, and I presume the rest of the colonies, you may lawfully call yourself whatever you want, unless (men rea) there is an intent to decieve.
What does “decieve” mean?
To obtain precuniry services is already covered. (Fraud/deception).
BUT, how does this pan out in Germany? Or China? or…..
There is NO way they can make this international.
ONLY in those countrys where the slaves are willing to accept it.
A law is only as good as the peoples willingness to abide by it!
LikeLike
The way around it is to use a name that sounds real but isn’t yours. So ‘Leg-iron’ could become Tony Steel (toe, knee, steel, geddit?) and while ‘Leg-iron’ would certainly raise a flag in a monitoring substation somewhere, Tony Steel wouldn’t raise an eyebrow.
Even a simple misspelling would do. There is a set of cold callers who think my name is ‘Kenneth’ and another lot think it’s ‘Keith’. They saw the ‘K’ and guessed and since I answered ‘yes’ the first time, I now have an easy way to spot a cold call right from the start. It saves bothering to work out whether it’s a real call before hanging up.
In these computerised days, a misspelled name can be hard to find…
LikeLike
And, how about people that have “reasonable excuse, Like myself?
Since the last of my Uncles snuffed it, five years ago, I am the only one left in the WHOLE bloody WORLD with my name.
MUCH to easy to find.
LikeLike
Unless you misspell it… ‘Well, yer ‘onor, I wa a bit tipsy when I signed up…’
LikeLike
So basically FUCK OFF!
The Dicatorship I mean, NOT any one here.
LikeLike
Since you don’t have to be convicted of anything, why not simply punish people by drawing lots?
You could make this huge wickerwork man, see, and have a big old party and everything. I bet that it would catch on.
LikeLike
I have that book…
LikeLike
What we could do is imprison everybody (at least, every man, all of whom are, by modern definition, pervo paedo sexist woman-haters as well as, if white, racist) and you have to prove that you are a good guy before they will let you out.
But, what if your real name sounds like a pseudonym? When Mrs and Mrs and Mrs Rodent bestowed the name “Radical” on me, it was their decision to ensure that I could not be classed as boy or girl, black or white, straight or gay from my name alone. Two very far-sighted folk, if you ask me.
BTW – I lived that book!
LikeLike
Then you choose a name that does not sound like a pesudonym – John Jones, for example. now that’s a very small needle in a big haystack!
LikeLike