David Blunkett. He appeared on a news show this weekend, and amongst the quotes I saw on BBC, he said the following (according to the BBC Website):

• "We'd be able to use civil law, like anti-social behaviour orders, to say, 'If you step outside what we've precluded you from doing, if you, for instance, use this particular banking network... then we can move you from the civil into the criminal law', and then we can use the normal criminal justice process, " he said."

The problem is, I'm sure he said:

• "We'd be able to use civil law, like anti-social behaviour orders, to say, 'If you step outside what we've precluded you from doing, if you, for instance, use this particular banking network, or the internet then we can move you from the civil into the criminal law', and then we can use the normal criminal justice process, " he said."

Please note, he said "OR THE INTERNET".

Was this a Freudian slip? Are the government afraid of freedom of information? I mean, are we going to become like China - where you can't access certain websites because the government firewalls them off? What is the point of Freedom and Democracy if we live in a Police State?

Incidentally, I have been re-reading my copy of Prometheus Rising by Robert Wilson. There is a great section around p97-105. Basically, back in 1988, he outlined how a state could take control of the populace psyche - in short bring them to a heightened state of FEAR that scares them to death, and then rouse them to follow your lead. The primitive response form them will be to follow due to their neural circuits being suspended due to fear. Also, he goes on about how the education system was tinkered with in the US after the 1960's usurp aka Hippy Age that caused the government much strife (starting with having to accept Black Slaves into the community - I mean such revolt has to be stopped doesn't it?) Not sure how accurate a lot of the information is, but the book is indeed interesting - though a tad hard to read.
--
dp

Posted 11/22/2004.

Comments:

1.  Anonymous says @ 3:42 pm
   I think you heard correctly. He's talked about creating a new crime of "acts preparatory to terrorism", which would allow police to ban suspects from using whichever method they were seen to be using. This could mean internet use. If this is correct, in practice they could stop a suspect from using the internet altogether, whether they were guilty or not. No evidence would be required to make this judgment. It's all very flimsy and makes no legal sense, but hey, that's Blunkett's way. More here.

Leave a comment