Why doesn't he just say Microsoft?

... to just make a local version of Guantanamo bay?

Am I the only one to be scared by this U-turn?

He will "consult the largest global internet and technology companies"

so he will ring bill and co and make a terrorist out of anyone who breaks copy protection . After all we cant have To much protection can we

concentrate on understanding why these silly bastards want to kill us in the first place. act, don't react. no, thats too simple, too obvious. ignore me.

"We won't give an inch to terrorism."

...but cavity search is coming soon outside Tesco's near you.

Seems fair play to me, you can never be too safe. Plus if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear. Bring it on! Mission accomplished!!

about the bubble-wrapping craze, apparently sweeping the Uk....

...we lost.

Welcome to Fortress UK. Everywhere you go you will be watched, followed, and when appropriate - detained whilst HMG decides what to do with you.

Want to make the country safer? Finish the job in Afghanistan, get the hell out of Iraq sharpish (like, yesterday) and put some distance between us and the US.

yadda yadda yadda security anti terrorism but we will let absolutely anyone into the country.

Security is impossible until we control the borders

What's the problem? The UK public don't care about terrorism, fundamentalism, radicalism, or any other kind of -ism that is no more of a threat than the next flu outbreak. In fact, considerably less threatening.

It's all about media exposure. If he wants to stop these 'terrorists' (i'm not particularly terrified) having what little effect they do have on British society, he needs to stop the media pumping headlines for ratings.

It's why i've stopped reading newspapers and watching TV.

Crikey, Dumb and Dumber on the Loose ...... and just whenever you thought they had plumbed deep enough. I am underwhelmed and quite frankly would question their Sanity and Fitness for Office.

I trust that is not too Ambiguous.

I feel a catch-22 coming on

a) You need a licence to be a crowd - you can apply at the local police station - the whole crowd needs to apply in persons.

b) it is illegal to be in an unlicenced crowd so please use the new entrance to the police station marked "crowd licensing applications" - which leads directly to jail/alligator pit.

Why we need new security legislation to deal with crowded places is beyond me - it is a basic H&S function to have evacuation procedures in place for assessed risks. Of course HSE does seem a bit slow to embrace the new shoot-em-first and ask questions after philosophy of modern state security.

Thats realy going to work.

I can get on a train at my local unmanned station and get into London with out going through a ticket barrier.

No who is going to check my rucksak as I wander from Kings Cross to St. Pancress

"It's all about media exposure. If he wants to stop these 'terrorists' (i'm not particularly terrified) having what little effect they do have on British society, he needs to stop the media pumping headlines for ratings."

Bloody tru dat.

They should prosecute anyone with a red-top tabloid as being in posession of documents assisting terrorist acts. And just plain shoot the editors and owners. The trouble with a "free press" is that it's not "free" - there's money involved and where there's that much money, there's greedy pigopolists who don't care about the harm they do. And then there are market-gurus who force the news outlet most insulated from this murderous greed to follow its rules. Because competition for the lowest common denominator is, of course, a known guarantor of quality. Every government procurement contract is proof of that, isn't it?

MORE cash for incompetent, flashy IT projects that, in practice, REDUCE security, I say!

Anyone remember the 70's and 80's, when we had competent terrorists that actually managed to blow people up regularly? Where were ID cards & 28 day + detention on the mainland then?

All that screening at a train station will do is create a big crowd for the bomber to blow up at the security checkpoint. Arguably more people will die if a bomb goes off in the queue for security, than if it explodes in a carriage.

More pointless annoyance for travellers to give the illusion of doing something.

"Security is impossible until we control the borders"

Wow, you actually found the solution to world terrorism, congratulations!

Perhaps you should become a politician.

"Mr Brown also said the Home Office would also consult with "the largest global internet and technology companies" on ways to restrict radicalisation and terrorist propaganda."

Meaning "my hands are itching to finally start proper censorship of your unternet and put an end to this decadent "freedom of information" or what have you, which always causes great embarassment when members of my cabinet send emails to a worng address or get caught in gay chatrooms using their real names or something... Oh, and imagine the cash and favours I'll get from the grateful global internet and technology companies!"

Next motion in the Parliament will be to rename "Great Britain" to "Little China".

@Ash

I'm as sceptical as the rest of you when the goverment plans another raft of dubious security measures, but don't be too much of a fool.

The were real bombs on 7/7 and the failed attacks after and what were the bombers if they weren't 'terrorists'. As for 'what little effect they do have on British society', I guess it depends whether you or your family were killed or injured.

Or are you all so wrapped up in your conspiracy theories that you now believe it was made up/done by 'the Jews'/by the secuity services/a freak electical storm or whatever.

Argue all you like on policy but don't insult the dead.

Screening luggage at railway stations? Ah, bloody great idea. FFS, there goes the only thing that made travelling on our dirty, yob-filled, expensive, creatively-timetabled railways more pleasant than flying.

Are the gov't trying to reduce terrorism by making it so unpleasant to go anywhere at all that people will just stay home all the time, not getting blown up?

Surely one of these policy makers will have thought that huge queues of people waiting to screen their bags presents a very juicy target in and of itself - a far higher risk than the odd suitcase bomb on a train. Why bother blowing up one carriage on the 11:32 to Edinburgh when you could slaughter ten times as many by touching the wires while standing in the seething mass of sheep waiting to be 'screened' at Paddington.*

*I have no idea where trains to Scotland from London depart from because I have a big, fast car. Eat my smoke, pedants and greenies.

They should intern everyone who "looks a bit dodgy" in camps, concentrating them all in one place. After all, it worked for that Hitler bloke.

Yes, I am aware I just broke a cardinal rule of internet debate but, seriously, is there anyone out there who doesn't think that we're living in a fascist state? People died to protect freedom from a misguided, power-crazed, hypocritical, unsustainable, lunatic regime -- now we're living in one.

"saying on BBC radio that he remained to be convinced of the need for longer pre-charge detention. An hour later, after a chat with Mr Brown, he was entirely convinced."

I wonder where brown keeps the brain slugs then.

Posted here Wednesday 14th November 2007 14:34 GMT

I believe this thread is calling Mr Brown to Account. And not a moment too s00n, IT Appears.

The Simple Question is ...... Which Global Operating Device does Prudence Heed?

"Plus if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear."

Bullshit.

If you believe this, then I look forward to you posting your full name, home and email addresses, phone numbers (mobile and landline), bank account details and your mother's maiden name to this very forum.

After all, you've got nothing to hide ...

I completely and wholeheartedly agree. What's is the point of stripping (literally from the sounds of it) the rights away from ALL British citizens whilst we let every single immigrant and 'asylum seeker' into this country with little or background checks.

We don't control our borders at all - so what is the point of all of this.

Control.

Welcome to 1984 citizen.

I just did a search on this, read (via Google translate) a Jihadist website, the durka durka one the Israeli's are always complaining about.

[URL removed by author due to local anti terror laws]

Surely the way the Israeli's should deal with that site is to debunk the claims they make, thereby explaining why the extremists are wrong. 'Restrict' is just another word for censor and that would be the wrong thing to do in this situation, it would mean that you can't debunk what they're saying so you have to censor it.

If it's propaganda then it's false, and if it's false it can be debunked!

It's like monsters in the dark, as soon as you switch on the light, those scary monsters are revealed to be coats and satchels, not toe eating zombies. Pulling the bedclothes tigher over your head just enhances the imagined fear.

Mind you, that site is for the Israeli's to debunk, I haven't found a similar durka durka site for the UK, anyone care to switch the light on the site brown's complaining about?

So how's this baggage screening going to work at train stations then? And how long before it's jettisoned when the City cottons on to the fact that the reason their offices are deserted is so their staff can be anal-probed at Surbiton and X-rayed at Waterloo? It'll be 'trialled' at the Eurostar stations and never taken further. Tw@s

As for consulting with "the largest global internet and technology companies" on ways to "restrict radicalisation and terrorist propaganda", well look how successful they are at keeping the kiddie porn off the net...

No matter what politicians try to "reduce the threat of terrorism', all that ever happens is a reduction in the liberties of the law-abiding.

No, Mr. Briton, you cannot take a bottle of refreshing water through security at the airport - in fact, I'd like you to remove some of your clothing.

What's that, Mr. Immigrant Criminal? Once your sentence is served you'd like to simply disappear into the background and not be returned to your native land? By all means!

Sorry, Mr. B. It is necessary - defense of the realm and all that, I'm sure you understand - to videotape you everywhere you go and to require you to stump up for biometric id thingies.

Of course, Mr. IC! Want a job as a security guard? Happy to oblige! What if you look after our Prime Minister's car for a bit? That do you?

Now, now, Mr. B. Do stop complaining. We have to be able to keep you locked up for 28/50/however-many-days-we-choose because our police forces are a bit stretched at the moment. Do you have any idea how long it takes to review all that video footage?

Well hello, Mr. IC! Welcome back to the UK! No documentation? Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. Never mind, do go on in - I'm sure a local authority or two can be stongarmed............er, persuaded to house you until we get around to figurng out what to do with you. Or until we forget about you.

And on and on and on.

"read (via Google translate) a Jihadist website," ...I'd be expecting a white van outside your house anytime soon. Don't worry though im sure all the reg readers wil vouch for why you went to that site :)

>"Plus if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear."

>

>Bullshit.

>

>If you believe this, then I look forward to you posting your full name, home and

>email addresses, phone numbers (mobile and landline), bank account details and

>your mother's maiden name to this very forum.

I thought it was pretty clear that I was being sarcastic.

[URL removed by author due to local anti terror laws]

Does that mean what I thunk it means? If that was excised by El Reg in order to comply with UK laws then I am truly appalled. Not by the moderator removing it, but that the law would require that.

Surely that means the Guberment can say "oh there are millions of evil websites out there advocating death to us all, but no you can't go look at them to see if we're telling you the truth or a fat load of b******s"

That is very close to state control of the media in my ever so 'umble opinion. I need to move to a nice Scandinavian country, or maybe the Antipodes (sp?)

.. just to give everyone their own "sharks with frikkin' laser beams"?

The dragons they chase are tales probably rented/rendered to them from the Faulty Batchworks.

And whether followed most likely for cash or less likely of their own volition, it is a dark and dismal road which one doesn't need to follow, for it is only designed to deliver Peril.

So I heard on the news (and what I thought the title was a reference to), was some idiot telling us how we have "built the shrapnel into our environment already" and proposing new walls and boxes and what not that doesn't shatter into a million pieces of flying debris when it's blown up.

Nice smooth white walls, CCTV with voice boxes, ID cards, 1984, equilibrium.... ffs, no wonder record numbers of people are leaving the country, and don't even get me started on tax, the news and propaganda

"[URL removed by author due to local anti terror laws]

Does that mean what I thunk it means?"

Only if you think El Reg is the author of the message.

It is all smoke and mirrors , George Orwell has been proven right yet again and that which was once unthinkable has now become reality and the dark age of Germany 1933 has come back under a new guise as we have turned the corner into repeating that fatal summer of 1932 and have now fallen into the abyss of no return !

Those that fail to learn the lessons from history are but doomed to repeat them !

The new 21st century is now one in which propaganda now rules supreme and all our so called democratically elected representatives are about to morph into a form of ruling hereditary elite before our very eyes !

The Magna Carta as drafted in 1215 has finally been shredded and the rise of the non democratic police state is now irrevocably set to replace it by stealth by giving us the illusion of safety from the what ifs rather than the reality of life !

Freedom and democracy just died today !

You are not cleared to know about the "unternet" unless you are a member of the highest echelon of the "ubernet" - please report to your local re-education centre (room 101) and bring all of your hard-drives, flash disks etc with you.

BB

"Brown finds a new way to fleece tax payers and force the population to live in fear (of the govt)..."

What they should be doing:

1. Let the Police know that their first job is to Protect and Serve the people - not just selectively protecting and serving the govt/politicians/rich/famous/corporations

2. Spend money putting more local police on the beat so they can deter/solve crime on the spot and protect the people from becomming victims.

3. Get the police better training and education.

4. Raise the entry requirements for police recruits so they aren't the usual officious/bullying/Nazi/fascist pratts.

5. Get better training for the "dial-a-cops" that work in the airports.

6. Perform a major review of all security procedures and remove all the BS Security Theatre (TM to Schneier) and do REAL security activites that work.

7. Stop interfering with other countries and their people/policies/lifestyles/religions/politics/business/trade etc...

8. Leave them the fuck alone and they'll leave you alone...

"Freedom and democracy just died today !"

And the Yin to such Yang is always .... Ca Ira. And in those ranks there are many volunteers with many skills in tearing down Jerry-built walls on dodgy foundations.

"The were real bombs on 7/7 and the failed attacks after and what were the bombers if they weren't 'terrorists'. As for 'what little effect they do have on British society', I guess it depends whether you or your family were killed or injured."

Never fear, dear fellow - a person has FAR more chance of being killed by a British invasion, than by a bomb on the tube.

>> Anyone remember the 70's and 80's, when we had competent terrorists that actually managed to blow people up regularly? Where were ID cards & 28 day + detention on the mainland then?

Ergo a few juvenile wannabe ragheads cannot constitute a realistic threat to much more than a sugar mouse. What is a much more plausible threat is that UK nationals in some quanity might at some point decide that enough is enough and decide to DO something. If that is the scenario (and the presence of large numbers of PC Plod hanging around water storage facilities during the floods earlier this year suggests that is on the agenda, among dozens of other examples) then the truly scary thing is not what hyperreal threat can be disseminated by Big Media, but what real changes to society are being planned that could get substantial numbers of people motivated enough to resist actively. Multiple banking collapses? Food shortages? Fuel shortages (including scenarios such as closure of the Straits of Hormuz, and disruption of European gas supplies from Russia)? Population control thru "influenza viruses"?

Somehow the traditional idea that a nation's rulers in times of crisis climb into an underground bunker and leave the rest of us to get on with things no longer seems to apply.

Strange as it may seem, "Dook" actually had something sensible to say about this:

"There's a lot more to freedom than just cowering in safety."

We have a far higher chance, statistically speaking, of being struck by lightning than being the victim of a terrorist outrage. In fact we have a far greater chance of dying because our bath water is too hot than from the attentions of the terrorists.

Has it occurred to anyone else here that "the threat of terrorism" is the biggest pork-barrel available in the UK, which is why the world and his wife are always talking up the threat? At the current rate of increase (assuming it's geometric rather than linear), judging from the MI5 chief spook's latest bit of singing for his supper, the entire population of the UK will be classified as either terrorists or sympathisers in a depressingly few year's time.

Remind me how many people these terrorists have killed exactly ... according to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain2005

there were approximately six people killed each DAY on the roads in the UK (the statistics will not have changed greatly from 2005).

Can we expect to see a similar response to that? I'm amazed nobody has called for these killer machines to be removed from the roads immediately, with only politicians and their drivers authorised to use the deadly streets and avenues.

Worried about terrorism? Just write another law against it, after arguing about it in parliament with clever put downs from either side for a few hours and then pass it without concerning yourself that yet another bit of the fabled `Free Country´has been eroded away by unimaginative politicians who don't give a shit about the real people of Great Britain.

I wonder about just how many real terrorists there are threatening the UK at this minute who are a genuine threat to all that we hold dear etc etc. I strongly doubt there are enough to warrant the costs and the number and scope of all the freedom removing laws that are being passed. I worked at a well known daily paper in the early seventies that was not well liked by the IRA, they typically called in 2 or 3 bomb scares a week and sometimes more. A couple of times there were even packages and a real bomb but we the employees generally looked on an alarm as an excuse for an extra curricular visit to the pub or cafe. Stuff the terrorists! don't let them get to you. And as far as cavity searches at the local station are concerned you can kiss my cavity!

How many people have been held for 28 days, and how many of those have turned out to be terrorists, (even in the loosest tabloid/government/big brother sense)?

Conversely, how many have been charged with normal criminal offences, or released without charge?

Umm Stuart they already have security checks and baggage screening on the Eurostar trains... I'd love to see them try this at Waterloo! Can anyone say Riot?

"may require a longer period for investigation by the police before charges can be made. " ... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/peter_riddell/article2872866.ece

One presumes that any detention under such terrorising measures which does not result in charge and prosecution is gratuitous and therefore subject to a punitive claim for damages, with the case having been already proven.

And with the Prime Minister not being elected to office via National popular vote, is his tenure unlawful and without mandate and Parliament guilty of aiding and abetting the unlawful conspiracy which is a coup against democracy and the introduction of a terrorist cell and private network, feathering nests of a Rotting Sysyem rather than Leading the Nation forward into New Fields of Endeavour and Invention?

J'accuse.

And is it the role of the Monarch/Royal Household, if such Roles are going to have any future relevance as viable and valid Champions of the People, to dissolve such a threat against the State?.

Pretenders and Imposters at the Helm are not acceptable.

One thing is definitely certain though, they will never fare well in CyberSpace and that is the New NeuReal World Order Information Space. ITs Doors and Windows are always Open for All to Fly in through, although into what they Enter, is always Surprising.... and one always gets what one deserves.

I imagine there will be a backlash against Muslims for these changes to our laws.

Man on Street:- "I don't see why my taxes should have to go up to pay for security to protect me from "your lot". How about we just get rid of "your lot". Who's with me?"

And so it came to pass that the BNP got in to power...

In particular, we need less security for politicians. If MPs want to feel endangered, then let them, but at least let the danger (such as it is) be faced by the government ministers themselves. A government which feels ultra-safe is more likely to do stupid things that expose the rest of us to risks.

Incidentally, for the £5bn or so, couldn't we fix poverty in the whole of Africa? Maybe if we did that, some of the extremists might decide to admire, rather than condemn us.

Nah, I (the author of the comment) removed it since it wasn't necessary to explain my point and I don't see the need to give people an excuse to silence my viewpoint.

Do a search for

[quds way], then use Google to translate from Arabic to English.

It's your typical army site praising their martyrs and condemning the other sides killings. Coats and Satchels in the dark stuff, but when they make a specific claim, e.g. 'Israel killed 17 people today in ..', then Israel should debunk it or apologize, i.e. 'there were no deaths on the raid of blah blah blah' or 'we regret the tragic death of blah which was unintentional during a raid to capture blah, compensation of blah has been paid to the relatives'.

It's very difficult to recruit extremists against an enemy that realizes it's mistakes apologizes and corrects for them. Whereas censoring the opposing viewpoint has the opposite effect.

*** Defuse the bomber not the bomb. ***

It's easy to understand why censorship is bad:

Scenario 1, with censorship:

Country X stole $10 billion from us [redacted], lets invade them!

Scenario 2, without censorship:

Country X stole $10 billion from us in retaliation for the seizing of $20 billion from them, lets invade them!

You can see the problem clearly, when you censor the opposing viewpoint as Bush Brown etc are suggesting, it feeds the extremists, suddenly the idea of invading a country to get back your $10 billion seems reasonable. Whereas if you have the full information it is not.

*** Fix the war monger not the war. ***

On this comment:

"How many people have been held for 28 days, and how many of those have turned out to be terrorists"

When a country doesn't want to give my wife the residence permit she's entitled to, it takes 6 months to obtain that permit.

Why 6 months?

Because that's the duration the EU Commission defined as the maximum that could be considered reasonable to obtain that permit.

It doesn't take 6 months to print her plastic card or read our marriage certificate.

So they use the maximum duration to try to deny her her right to the permit. She can't travel without that permit and if she has to leave for a family emergency or whatever the 6 month clock starts ticking again.

If you give the police 56 days to charge, then they'll use 56 days to issue charges whenever they want to 'punish' someone, no different from administrators taking 6 months to issue my wifes card.

Why do they keep prisoners in Guantanamo without charges? Because they can.

"2. Spend money putting more local police on the beat so they can deter/solve crime on the spot and protect the people from becomming victims." Ahh the politician's favorite line, coming from South Africa myself I can't tell you how much this statement irritates me, if you look around you you'll soon realise that there are more than enough police around and this country doesn't need more overspending. The problem is not quantity but quality, as illustrated by the fact that they need 28 days to find out that you're not a terrorist.

"3. Get the police better training and education." that sounds like a much better idea, also get someone in charge that knows what their doing, this is obviously where the problems lie (not intended to be sarcastic).

Also, I can't help but thinking that a lot of people commenting here are completely over-reacting, sure the government are a greedy incompetant lot but the country's not sliding toward facism. Besides you can all vote so why don't you do something about it (I know Brown has been forced upon us, but why the hell did anyone vote for Labour in the first place?). Personally I don't vote in the UK because its either lazy idiots (Labour) or green hippies (Conservatives) or some party that will never come to power anyway, but the point is you have a choice, so not facism or dictatorship or whatever.

Couldn't agree more. In the whole 30-year period of the most recent NI 'troubles', which was a much worse terrorist situation than the UK as a whole faces today, there were still more people killed in traffic accidents than by terrorists (and our standard of driving wasn't *that* bad :) )

This is just the New Labour Nannies at it again. Gordon Stalin might like living in a fortress, but *I* don't.

"Never fear, dear fellow - a person has FAR more chance of being killed by a British invasion, than by a bomb on the tube."

Assuming they were in Iraq, they'd have a much greater chance of being killed by a muslim suicide bomber than by the British or Americans.

For the record I don't support extending the detention period, but I can oppose that without joining the conspiracy wingnuts.

"Besides you can all vote so why don't you do something about it (I know Brown has been forced upon us, but why the hell did anyone vote for Labour in the first place?)."

I'm a EU national therefore I can't vote in the General Elections. Yet Mr Brown wants to force some biometric ID onto me. I already carry a passport and my country of origin's ID card.

I also travel from a large train station every weekday, and now face being subjected to searches and being late for my train even more often than I normally am. Once again, I've had no say about this.

Thankfully I live in Scotland which gives me a glimmer of hope, as here at least I have a say about local government.

I thought the statistics on the number of people killed in Iraq, while varying wildly depending on who you speak to, still quite clearly state that the British/Americans have killed far more people than have died in the UK or USA due to terrorism. He's hardly a conspiracy wingnut for pointing out that those figures would suggest you would be more likely to die in a British invasion. You could also argue that Muslim suicide bombs are a direct result of the invasion. Of course, you wouldn't agree, anyone who opposes the war must be a conspiracy wingnut, and that makes as much sense as what you said.

@John A. Blackley

Once again you're on the immigration issue. There isn't a terrorism problem, driving, walking down the street, falling out of bed, are all bigger threats to your health and safety than some guy wearing a bomb belt. Using terrorism as an excuse to close our borders is ridiculous, as is the worrying trend in newspapers to report as loudly as possible on any crime committed by an immigrant (see Italy as to why this is a BAD thing). To put it into context, immigrants commit 10% of crimes in the UK, and make up 20% of the populace (see Independent from a week past Saturday when discussing Italy since you'll no doubt tell me it's unsubstantiated if I don't mention this). Do you agree with Enoch Powell as well? After all, only illegal immigrants would commit terror acts.

Only illegal governments -

Perhaps you'd like to list the numerous illegal immigrants convicted of terrorist acts in the UK? Seems like brown's "aliens are terrorists" propaganda is already working.

'Secure' the railway stations? what next..bus stations? motorway services? it's not possible to 'bomb-proof' urban society. there will always be a way to attack it. A mildly creative 13 yo could come up with the method and weaponry to make the front pages.