It seems the terrorists have won

or at least the mosterous happenings in France are a win -win situation

a win for the islamic terrorists
and a win for the liberalist dictators

one definition of terrorism is "acts designed to change the behaviour of govt or other groups"

well they have certainly done that if camergoon introduces his attemt to destroy the freeoms we "had"

and of course it suits camergoon and his ilk to the ground..once passed they will be able to snoop on news papers..intimidate "sources" intimidate "whistle blowers"
they will be able to snoop on political rivals and thus influence the outcome of political issues...

they could (and who would put it past them) use it to stifle nearly all concerted dissent.

instance .....


At the moment of course you are free to hold almost ANY opinion...even if its "not the approved one" and indeed you are able to share that opinion with others....

HOW LONG ...before some non elected, unrepresentative group like "hate not hope" lobbys the govt into using the intel to identify anyone they consider "wacist or whatever" and to take action against them

so much for a free society....


then of course you have the scared little chickens...like some on here who are quite prepared to roll over and surrender this ...... (cluck cluck cluck)

now we see who's running scared......

when you are so terrified you will make up any ridiculous nonsense to justify the removal of rights then yiou are yellow indeed...sqwaulk.....

and THIS is what happens when they do


The Turkish government's love/hate relationship with Twitter is once again turning sour. A court in the country's Adana province is threatening to ban Twitter unless it blocks the account of a newspaper (BirGun) posting leaked documents that expose the truth behind a raid on an Intelligence agency convoy. Twitter and other social networks have agreed to delete individual posts, but that's not considered good enough. BirGun is defying the censorship, and the court believes that the media outlet is interfering with both the investigation and national security as a whole.

Twitter hasn't said precisely how it'll respond, although the company tells the New York Times that it'll "work diligently" to keep its service available to Turkish residents while protecting their rights. Of course, that's easier said than done. Turkey's officials have been looking for reasons to drop the hammer on Twitter, and it's hard to see that paper's account remaining accessible without some severe consequences.


from that news feed.......

and of course there is THIS

but of course thats exactly what the liberalists want.....

crush all dissent
crush all exposure of liberalist wrong doings
and of course install a police state


from http://news.sky.com/story/1409553/camerons-anti-terror-plan-rings-alarm-bells





David Cameron's had a rough ride on both sides of the Atlantic with his plans to ban encrypted communications.

Reactions included "colossally stupid", "idiotic" and "technologically illiterate" from former White House cyber officials to people in the digital technology industry.

But there is another reason to be worried about the Government's attempt to assume even more anti-terror powers - the potential for their abuse.

Justifying his controversial proposals, the Prime Minister insisted to Sky News: "We don't want to interfere with the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens."

Yet his Government is currently defending the use of existing anti-terror legislation to do just that.
Video: What Are Encrypted Phone Messages?

There was outrage earlier this year when British police were revealed to have used laws designed to target terrorists to spy on journalists instead.

Journalists and press freedom advocates warn the secret surveillance is already having a chilling impact on whistle-blowers.

Ordinary people who want to expose wrongdoing to journalists will think twice if they believe the police have placed the press under surveillance.

The first force to be exposed secretly using anti-terror laws to spy on journalists was London's Met.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was passed to protect national security and stop terrorists.

The London police used it to spy on Sun political editor Tom Newton Dunn, not to prevent a terrorist outrage, but instead to find his police sources during the Andrew Mitchell "plebgate" affair.
Video: PM: No 'Safe Space' For Terrorists

Police were able to view his private mobile phone records without his knowledge because of a piece of legislation that had been justified originally only to protect national security.

Since then the UK Press Gazette has revealed the same law is being used by other police forces to spy on more journalists.

Home Secretary Theresa May has listened to all the outrage and drawn up legislation that will effectively legalise the right of police to continue spying on journalists.

The proposal rides roughshod over the decades-old principle that it is in the public interest for journalists' sources to be protected.

Journalist surveillance need only be approved by a senior police officer, not a judge.

The National Union of Journalists has warned that Theresa May's proposal "denies journalists an opportunity to defend the confidentiality of their sources, and information that deserves to be in the public domain won't see the light of day as a consequence".
Video: Social Media Terrorism

The freedom of ordinary citizens and the press to expose and reveal wrongdoing by government and others is a cherished liberty.

In America it is enshrined in the constitution.

Secret police surveillance of the press for minor crimes is common in less free societies.

In Britain it has already begun.

In the light of all that, the Prime Minister's pledge that new anti-terror laws will not interfere with civil liberties and freedoms rings hollow.

I think you need to calm down a bit

Agree with Darknessss
this is an attack on Freedom.
Existing laws are sufficient to catch terrorists, if they still fail it is due to lack of manpower or incompetence