And So It Begins in UK

There has been a little known mechanism within the apparatus of the UK government called a "Class Seven Authorisation", this was revealed through the former head of SIS who confirmed that it existed and was a way that SIS would go about getting authorisation to use lethal force. The guy did also say that he in his time at SIS had never actually seen one being used but that the system did exist which would allow SIS to commit criminal acts in the name of national security. So make no mistake this is not something new.

But, to me this law sounds a lot like that, might just be replacing it, I don't know but either way its an awful bit of legislation that they have pushed through and one which I personally do to support. I do think that police and intelligence services do require legislation that allows them to operate effectively undercover but I do not believe from what I have read that this bit of legislation is going to be fit for purpose and has enough oversight.

But this is Boris....what did we expect.

"The ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination." -Voltaire

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Kenzo

Just more ill thought out, rushed and not fit-for-purpose legislation that typifies this current administration and its knee-jerk reactions.

Boris and his team have no cohesive, joined together and proactive plan for this country and every single bill they get passed through parliament reeks of panic and are incredibly ill prepared.

But they get passed because such is the nature of our out-dated party political system that puts party affiliation and personal advancement before personal conviction and the well being and interests of this country and its people.

Sorry mate, massively disagree. Only 21 MP's actually voted against this so it had huge cross party support. Those that voted against include Dianne Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn and Kate Osamor. Despite the cross party support, if those 3 are against something then it is probably actually a good idea.

I dont see the issue being just about law, i see it is also about human nature.

There has allways been certain amount of people who do not have "normal " psyche " , and for those people law has been
the one obstacle that to some degree has limit wrong doings , because they dont want to get in trouble.

Person who has healthy psyche, dont even want to commit crime, do wrong things to other people.

So if a country enter in situation where "certain " individuals in goverment agencies notice that by doing something very wrong, they dont even get in the trouble anymore, because they did not actually broke the law, it will open door for some psychopath to go beyond normal behaviour.

The opportunity to commit something criminal and unethical without getting in to bigger problems is something that should to me taking on account. By having too free hands to actually do wrong things , is to me wrong direction .

So there`s that





Zarah Sultana MP

1BRIEFINGFORSECONDREADINGOFTHECOVERTHUMA NINTELLIGENCESOURCES(CRIMINALCONDUCT)BILL

007 - Licence to Kill

a reply to: UKTruth

I dont think Human Rights Act has any effects on this, the goverment sees that it dont apply to covert agents , and so when the covert agents do something in the field , their daddy, the goverment will back them.

a reply to: Flavian

Oh the MPs who are sailing Britain in to economic chaos, tyranny....you really have bright image about the MPs , the MPs who are backing this all fake covid statistic and lies ...

All that this bill has done is to put into writing what activities can be used and made authorisation to use lethal force a more legitimate course of action if needed.
It also brings our SIS "laws" in line with our major allies.

a reply to: djz3ro

This is exactly the point of the bill.
The reason for not putting limitations on the acts that can be carried out is so that those being investigated can't just make people do the thing they are prohibited from doing as a test.

For example if they specifically state that killing cant be done under this bill then terrorist organisations will just make suspected informants kill someone.

a reply to: DISRAELI

"Hidden in plain sight" springs to mind as the contra view.

I'm a bit puzzled though as the reason the Tories are in power is the lack of an effective opposition.

Perhaps this rushed legislation is to protect an ongoing operation that is about to turn nasty.

a reply to: Doxanoxa
It obviously hasn't worked, then, because people have noticed it.
In fact I'm not convinced that any authorities anywhere have trusted the "hidden in plain sight" theory enough to rely on it when they wanted things to be secret. It worked once, in a story, but then it had the unfair advantage that the author wanted it to work out that way.

a reply to: Kurokage

There’s nothing legitimate about using lethal force, which is why we don’t have the death penalty in this country and such actions had to be done covertly in the past.

All this Bill does is provide legal / statutory protections for situations which in the past may have been conducted in a legal desert, or with questionable legal protections. It recognises that it is sometimes necessary for people working for the State to break the law. It's sensationalism to run with the “… authority for the government to murder its own citizens” angle.

Here's the legislation if you are interested noting that the Bill is not yet law.

a reply to: paraphi

It does give the government legal authority to murder its own citizens though, if passed into law. Which it most likely will be.

I see this site still has its GHCQ employees defending the gov in everything they do...

originally posted by: surfer_soul
It does give the government legal authority to murder its own citizens though, if passed into law. Which it most likely will be.

The Bill is most likely to be passed into law, but may yet be amended.

If you read the debates, which are published on Hansard, the topic has been raised throughout. Apart from the legal conflict with other legislation should it be found that the UK has murdered or tortured its own citizens. There is also the process of authorisation which would check such action - under section 1(5) et al.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: paraphi

It does give the government legal authority to murder its own citizens though, if passed into law. Which it most likely will be.

I see this site still has its GHCQ employees defending the gov in everything they do...

Bills like this first go through a Commons Select Committee - they make recommendations before the Bill is presented to the House. The select committees are all cross party and this Bill received almost full cross party support - it isn't something forced through by the government, it is instead something that almost every MP agreed with. The 21 MP's that didn't vote for it (out of 650) are nearly all far left Momentum stooges.

a reply to: Flavian

Good to see you around mate.

Just because our MP's think its good doesn't actually mean it is good.
They are the last people on earth I'd trust or whose word I'd take!

I'm not saying there isn't the need for legislation just that this seems hurried and open to abuse.

It concerns me that a number of posters consider this as a way of normalising that which should never be normal. Consider how you can interpret 'national security' in a very rational manner. Surely, the issue is about who uses the power under the pretext of protecting national security...who benefits?

During war with a country attacking your country, soldiers defending the nation are immune to most prosecutions for the act of killing the enemy, except in circumstances exceptional. Laws are only as potent as the belief in them, and in the reasons for having them. No individual or group is more important than the nation as a whole, and they should never be allowed to wield the nation's power of consent to benefit themselves, under whatever pretext.

These are laws that should never be sanctioned without there being some form of accountability expressed with extreme prejudice. Accountability should want to prosecute and seek it, because that is the only way to protect the nation from an abuse of its own power. You don't suspend morality, ethics, or conscience, you protect them by not giving expression to unchecked use of power. Clearly, however, we have all failed in this, and the nation will oneday reap what is has clearly allowed to be sown.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Great post.

Thought provoking words for anyone regardless of their current viewpoint.

Freeborn:

Thought provoking words for anyone regardless of their current viewpoint.

Thank you.

I keep coming back to that word...rationality. It is a word around which very good and very bad actions have occurred throughout history, and yet, even knowing this, I still look for rationality, especially during this Sars-Cov-2 crisis.

You know, apart from the media, I have no other source, no other way of confirming the cause of all this chaos is in fact a viral threat. Sars-Cov-2 is allegedly the actual virus, and Covid-19, is allegedly the multiple symptom disease that can arise from becoming infected with the Sars-Cov-2 virus. If these are facts or lies, I have no way of confirming either way, I have no choice but to trust to the voices and the images of the media. Hence my requirement for evidence of rationality, especially in scientific and government instructions, and in these areas, I find no real evidence of rationality, and it is this fact that concerns me most, because it impugns both agenda and ulterior motive behind the way England's government have responded in the chaotic way they have.

The only place I can perceive any form of behavioural rationality is in the country of Sweden, where they seem to have met this viral threat head on with commonsense responses. It is a truism, is it not, that actions speak louder than words? Actions tend to shine a light on true motives, and if we look at the actions of our government, what they impute should fill everyone with a deep sense of unease. However, the greater unease I feel is the response of the people to these contradictory, hypocritical government instructions. Instructions, by the way, that are not actually legal according to one very high placed judge. The majority of people have not questioned things, or so it seems, but there is now a simmering of anger growing, but the voices still remain quiet and compliant. This quiet pandering of compliance by the people to the way the government has/is handling this virus is the most damaging aspect of it all.

It has allowed the government to implement a number of programs to socially re-engineer our society, and to seek to normalise state sanctions very few of us would ever reconcile with and agree to. I would suspect that there are equivalent social re-engineering programs being implemented in many other countries simultaneously, in order to synchronise their emergence from the crisis into the same homogeneous result, and that will be (I suspect) a European superstate, irrespective of the Brexit referendum. The excuse used will be that the damage to the economies of many countries can be fixed only by accepting this one superstate, and it will be one of five complementary steps towards the global new world order.

America, is at present some distance from this, as it is not only having to deal with the viral threat, but also with the more damaging internal fracturing from the many ideological divides it finds itself expressing. It has in a way, placed itself into suspended national cognisance. It is not a nation united, but a nation once united to a degree, to one that finds itself very disunited. It is fighting to find the direction of its future, and the face it wants to wear as a nation, a nation that is inclusive of all colours and creeds. How it will achieve this I have no idea, but I do feel that the people will have to accept some aspects of socialism, because without doing so, it can never be a nation. It will fall, eventually, in the same way that Europe and Britain will come to be as one homogeneous state.

There is a great deal more to discuss through logic and reason and rationality, but there does not seem to be a resonance for it at the moment, so perhaps, the discussion needs to wait?