Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Many dead in coordinated Paris shootings and explosions

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with VP. If there's one good thing that comes out of this, it's that the Investigatory Powers Bill is less likely to be nobbled by a gruesome coalition of ISPs, tech lobbyists and privacy obsessives.
 
Rentoul's a prick at the best of times but he's made an apology to admit it, no need for pitchforks at dawn. And there are worse cuntface pundits

CTulFebWUAA1ES4.jpg
I don't understand that tweet. Who's Schengen?
 
I still think our democracy and civil society seems in a far healthier state than france (and i dont think ours is healthy at all)

I think maybe the strict delineations between state and social functions in France make their democracy more robust, but less flexible than many other European states. It seems more "top-down" than elsewhere.

They also seem far to have far more active jihadi cells in a position to strike

A legacy of their treatment of French North Africans, and the ongoing open racism in parts of French society, perhaps.
Probably not helped by their appeasement of "old skool" Middle Eastern political terrorist groups from the '70s to the '90s, either, which may have encouraged a certain sense of freedom within France's borders.
 
Undoubtedly in the next few days we will hear about how important mass surveillance is, how it's necessary to keep us safe etc which is why it's so important to effectively legalise what they have been already doing but if it it's so effective then how did last night happen?
 
Theres little you can really do realisticly about a jihadist with an ak47 in a crowd.
Even if you had call of duty style teleporting super troopers:rolleyes:
You can burn through all the ammo you can carry in a matter of minutes and then blow yourself up.

You need to catch the bastards before they start shooting.
it always turns out they wete alteady known about
 
Undoubtedly in the next few days we will hear about how important mass surveillance is, how it's necessary to keep us safe etc which is why it's so important to effectively legalise what they have been already doing but if it it's so effective then how did last night happen?

You might as well argue against the NHS because people still get ill and die. There really have been an awful lot of potential atrocities averted, by precisely the sort of surveillance you're complaining about.
 
I cannot imagine a situation where I'd prefer to rely on the goodwill of Pickman's than on the distilled wisdom of all humanity, carefully prioritised and ranked by world-leading algorithms in giant server farms.
So you are in favour of May's snoopers charter. Don't you think it is likely if the security services are swamped with all of our email and browsing habits that it is more likely they will fail to see the wood for the trees?
 
The Schengen Treaty is conditional, there is nothing to stop member states defending their borders in desperate circumstances. EU officials like Donald Tusk don't like it and may try to advocate an alternative, but it doesn't violate any treaty commitments. But that's lost on dimwit British pundits like Toby Young who can't even be bothered with five minutes Googling to check their facts before opening their gobs.
 
Undoubtedly in the next few days we will hear about how important mass surveillance is, how it's necessary to keep us safe etc which is why it's so important to effectively legalise what they have been already doing but if it it's so effective then how did last night happen?

Because it's not perfect, and will inevitably miss some things. But I think it's undeniable that it's prevented some attacks. I think arguing against it on the grounds that it's failed sometimes is the wrong track to take.
 
So you are in favour of May's snoopers charter. Don't you think it is likely if the security services are swamped with all of our email and browsing habits that it is more likely they will fail to see the wood for the trees?

No. They have some quite clever people and some quite expensive analytical tools; the point is that they now need a robust legal framework in order to continue with the bulk data collection which they were previously justifying under rather obscure provisions of old telecommunications acts.

Although you were replying not to my earlier post praising the Investigatory Powers Bill, but to a post which was agreeing with those who found Orang Utan's googlephobia peculiar. So perhaps the point you're making is so fiendishly subtle that I'm missing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom