It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britain is too tolerant and should interfere more in people's lives, says David Cameron

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason


But 3 out of the 4 occasions when the state ran a budget surplus since '45, it's been under a Labour Gov?
All of this "Labour spend too much and are reckless" is nonsense... utter nonsense.
It was a GLOBAL financial crash, not caused by Labour.

It was the bankers and the elite that caused it but the poorest pick up the tab.

Same old same old.


I'm no Labour supporter... this was the first time I ever voted for them, but the Tory lies are just too much man.
It's unbelievable the lengths they went to to discredit Ed and Labour... the Murdoch press went into overdrive.
That alone tells me all I need to know.
edit on 14/5/15 by blupblup because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup

Typical hypocrisy of conservatives; dang government should stay out of my business, but get all up in other peoples...



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup

At least he's honest about it...

Wrong, but honest.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup

I never said they caused this one, but they didn't exactly do much to stave it off or mitigate it either. I was telling my parents in 2002 (when I was just 20) that the house price bubble would be trouble, but no one wanted to know and that was the attitude at the top.

As for the 3 out of the last 4 comment - slight misrepresentation... There was a surplus every year between 1947 and 1974, when there were alternating Tory and Labour Governments and it was a Labour Government that tanked the economy and killed the surplus beforew Maggie swept in. Labour also inherited a surplus in 1997 from the Tories too.

And I didn't vote Tory either...



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason


Well I read a very lengthy and interesting article recently dealing with all of this and I may have the figures wrong?
Can't seem to google the article but I will try and see if I can find it.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup

Cool beans - will give me something to read as I struggle with my 4th night shift on the bounce



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: blupblup

Cool beans - will give me something to read as I struggle with my 4th night shift on the bounce


Damn.... did nights once, never again man!!




ETA:

This still isn't the article but I think some of the data is linked in there?

www.theguardian.com...
edit on 14/5/15 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
We must all be good little drones.
We mustn't speak badly of, or criticize, any group whether it's politically, racially or religiously motivated, even if criticism is warranted. It'll all be classed as hate crime or radicalization and punishable. Having or voicing an opinion counter to the politically correct and accepted or legislated norm will be dealt with harshly.

So much for free speech then.

Of course, they get to decide and make the rules. Looking at what Harper is doing over in Canada, bringing in or looking at legislation to outlaw the BDS movement, for instance, one has to wonder who is pulling Cameron's strings and who or what these proposals are really meant to protect.

Well Mr. Cameron, you can take any of your proposed legislation and stick it where the sun don't shine as I for one don't give a damn and will continue to call out what I see as wrong, no matter who it may piss off or upset.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: crazyewok

Is the British equivalent run by the private sector like the NSA? are they also into data mining for profits?

The NSA is mostly run by private interest, they also are for profits and as corrupted as it can be.



It's a very complex one - they're state funded and technically run by the state but in reality there's little/no oversight and we're the most surveyed nation in the world as regulatory frameworks are very rarely paid attention to, as evidenced via Snowden leaks.


originally posted by: crazyewok

If I remember rightly blair tried his own patriot act and failed too.


Indeed, sadly the bastard was successful in hundreds of other state surveillance measures - had almost forgotten about that which is embarrassing. The last govs record on measures was pretty angelic in comparison.

Blair oversaw/encouraged the introduction of gait dna on CCTV (being able to identify people anywhere on CCTV as everyone unique walk known as a 'gait') and numberplate recognition cameras on the entrances and exists of most towns and all cities to automatically track movement.
edit on 14-5-2015 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043
The NSA is already in the UK, has been since the NSA was formed. They're sitting up Menwith Hills. Have'nt you listened to your own politicians when they say "we do not spy on our own people". What they really mean is "we do not spy on our people in America", they do it from the UK.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
What is dave playing at??


Keeping the manifesto pledges to scrap human rights, introducing the snooping charter and banning protests against the savage upcoming cuts. Same stuff they tried to pass through Parliament last time but couldn't secure a majority vote, now it's a dead cert.


Eventually, when people get pissed off enough (if that ever happens) with these government tools, laws will mean little to nothing. It'll be French Revolution 2.0 and I think the upgrades are going to be pretty nasty. Of course that may be what the PTB want, get us all fighting with any presumed target while tensions are high and they get their depopulation. It's hard to make a decision when you're playing chess, but your opponent knows most of your moves and has an agenda other than simply winning.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup


David Cameron is a damn moron. never worked a day in his life, silver spoon fed and a complete idiot.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Er yes, as long as you obey the law, you SHOULD be left alone.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Are we entering an era of nationalism now? People should be free to go about their business as they see fit without much government interference.


The package of powers, first proposed in March, would allow courts to force a person to send their tweets and Facebook posts to the police for approval.

Ofcom will have new powers to pressurise broadcasters which show content deemed “extreme” while the Charity Commission would be mandated to scrutinise charities who “misappropriate funds”.


This mandate directly interferes with free speech. I guess that isn't a thing over in the U.K. At least in the U.S., Fox News is allowed to spew its nonsense (although I do wish it would be required to report factual information).

I don't agree with the idea that views that aren't "mainstream" (a.k.a. government approved) should be made illegal.
edit on 14pmThu, 14 May 2015 22:35:20 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup



Mr. Cameron’s office said the proposals included a new system under which the police would be able to apply for “disruption orders” allowing them to restrict the activities of those thought to be radicalizing people. The orders would be overseen by the courts.

Details have yet to be made public, but according to British news reports, the orders could include a requirement that anyone subject to the restrictions submit in advance any material to be published in print, digitally, or on social media.

David Cameron Seeks New Powers to Combat Extremism in Britain

I'm sure he means well...

:-)

I don't suppose that the criteria used for restricting the activities of those thought to be radicalizing people would also apply to the BNP?

No - I didn't think so

edit on 5/14/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
SMH



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   
That's the true face of conservatism. He's just being honest.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I think Prime Minister Cameron's quote looks more at home in this setting.




posted on May, 15 2015 @ 02:24 AM
link   
As long as THEY dont break the law, WE will leave THEM alone...oh wait.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: blupblup

I never said they caused this one, but they didn't exactly do much to stave it off or mitigate it either. I was telling my parents in 2002 (when I was just 20) that the house price bubble would be trouble, but no one wanted to know and that was the attitude at the top.

As for the 3 out of the last 4 comment - slight misrepresentation... There was a surplus every year between 1947 and 1974, when there were alternating Tory and Labour Governments and it was a Labour Government that tanked the economy and killed the surplus beforew Maggie swept in. Labour also inherited a surplus in 1997 from the Tories too.

And I didn't vote Tory either...

Sorry but your corrections aren't correct. There was not a continuous surplus (or anything like it) between 47-74 and labour inherited roughly a 4% deficit in 97.




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join