« Timmy Elsewhere | Main | How Coy »

August 17, 2006

Freedom and Security

Slightly worrying results in that Spectator poll:

When asked whether Britain should change its foreign policy in response to terrorism only 12 per cent said it should be more conciliatory, compared with 53 per cent who thought it should become more "aggressive" and 24 per who wanted no change.

More aggressive? What on earth would that be? The turn Teheran into a parking lot option?

Some 69 per cent said that the police should be able to hold suspects for up to 90 days without charge, rather than be bound by the current 28-day limit.

So much for civil liberties then.

The poll findings will encourage John Reid, the Home Secretary, who has warned the British public that they will have to forgo many of the freedoms and liberties they have grown used to in order to ensure the maximum level of security.

Ah, how terribly revealing. The "maximum level" of security. Hey, we could have barcodes on our foreheads, internal passports, indefinite detention without trial etc etc etc. We still wouldn’t have that maximum level of security.

The aim is to have the maximum level of security consistent with our freedoms and liberties, not to give them up for something that cannot be obtained.

What’s the ned got planned for us next?

August 17, 2006 in Islamists | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Freedom and Security:

» What does it all mean? from The Glittering Eye
A poll of Britons take for The Spectator has produced some interesting and, I think, disquieting results: The survey, carried out for The Spectator magazine, shows that a majority of people now recognises everyday lives will change fundamentally. Seven... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 17, 2006 2:04:09 PM


But I was hugely reassured by this poll finding: "Only 14 per cent believed Britain should continue to align itself with America."

Forget all that stuff for the gullible in the government's dossier of 24 September 2002 on Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction. There is an alternative, straight-forward and entirely credible explanation for the Iraq war in this news report of 19 August 2004 on MSNBC about a missing $8.8 billions:

"WASHINGTON - At least $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds that was given to Iraqi ministries by the former U.S.-led authority there cannot be accounted for, according to a draft U.S. audit set for release soon.

"The audit by the Coalition Provisional Authority’s own inspector general blasts the CPA for “not providing adequate stewardship” of at least $8.8 billion from the Development Fund for Iraq that was given to Iraqi ministries.

"The audit was first reported on a Web site earlier this month by David Hackworth, a journalist and retired colonel. A U.S. official confirmed that the contents of the leaked audit cited by Hackworth were accurate. . .

"One of the main benefactors of the Iraq funds was the Texas-based firm Halliburton, which was paid more than $1 billion out of those funds to bring in fuel for Iraqi civilians.

"The monitoring board said despite repeated requests it had not been given access to U.S. audits of contracts held by Halliburton, which was once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, and other firms that used the development funds."

Posted by: Bob B | Aug 17, 2006 1:23:58 PM