It could never happen. No operative could stand reading the shoite you post for any length of time, it's bad enough for us.

A couple of things mentioned on Question Time last night, one being "Why can't a British company invent and host a search engine and a Facebook ?", well nice idea but its never going to happen so in the meantime the other thing makes more sense "Don't ever post anything on Facebook that you don't want others to read and don't believe that when it says "Private" then it means that".



Personally I posted a series of Spike Milligan poems on my Facebook page last night, I hope the various government agencies who will "Share" these around like them this morning.

I didn't mention anyone assassinating you on public transport.



But it is an entirely reasonable illustration of what can go wrong with entirely innocent people when the security forces cock up. After all, what could possibly happen to an electrician going about their life perfectly normally and legally?



There are plenty of other illustrations of incidences where the police have monumentally cocked up – "monumentally" as in mortal errors. The Harry Stanley case is just that springs to mind, since it happened very near where I live.



So to start with, if you cannot comprehend that the security forces and police are far from infallible, then you're staggeringly naive.



If you comprehend the above – and still think that giving the security forces even more scope for error (it has been acknowledged that, for instance, no amount of additional snooping powers would have prevented the murder of Lee Rigby), then you're plain daft.



If you do not understand and value the concept of privacy, you're also daft on that score too.



That you're apparently happy to sacrifice your own privacy is one thing: that you're apparently quite happy for everyone else to sacrifice theirs too, and daft enough to fall for the cretinous line about 'if you've nothing to hide', is yet another illustration of the parlous state of public discourse in this country.

and now [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/14/home-secretaries-clegg-snoopers-charterfour former Home Secretaries are urging Clegg to drop his opposition to the snoopers' charter[/url



Why is it whenever something bad happens, or is even hinted at, all politicians want to do is exercise greater control over the lives of the population? The vast majority of whom are no threat to anyone at all.

All four of 'em, need locking up based on a case of mistaken identity. They would soon change their tunes.



In any case just how would the "snoopers charter" have prevented the Woolwich Incident? No one is daft enough to post their intentions to commit such a crime on Facebook. So just what would they be looking for? Someone posting they converted to Islam and because they did which is of course perfectly legal suddenly start treating them as a potential criminal?



Hopefully Clegg will have the balls not to cave in though his past record of working out how to support stuff he claims to be against is not good.

As far as I am aware, in the days immediately after that murder, it was acknowledged that no such measures would have stopped it.



It's the bloody security services that get each new government as it enters office, and tries to convince it that ever more surveillance measures are required.



Cameron and the Conservatives were (rightly) opposed to these sort of measures in opposition. It only took until they got in office, and GCHQ to have a little word, to change their minds.

Boring old you? No. It's very unlikely that anyone would ever find you interesting enough to watch.



But if they have the capacity to monitor boring old you, for no reason whatsoever, then they have the capacity to monitor ANYONE for ANY REASON.



This still might not be an issue for you, because you seem to be very stupid, but it would worry anyone with any sense.

Excellently put.

Why though? Other than the childish insults, none of you have come up with any reasons at all why that should bother me or anyone else.

Nothing gets votes like looking good in a crisis.



Even if sometimes, you have to create a crisis to begin with.



See Bush the Lesser's second election victory, secured amidst a climate of fear in post 9/11 America.

I haven't insulted you.



So perhaps you can provide something like a half-way thought-out response to some of the points that have been raised.



As it happens, your response to TLGJM suggests that you simply don't care a fig about anyone else other than yourself. So you're admitting, in essence, that you're just an entirely selfish and self-centred individual. Which at least will be consolation to you if you ever do need anyone else to care about you.

Taking some well deserved flak again I see.



What's wrong with the authorities having to convince a judge that the need to monitor someone is in the national interest?



Or let's say in the future, a very left wing government gets in power and decides they want to eradicate anyone who is even slightly right wing. They need only turn to GCHQ to get their targets.