Heard any good conspiracy theories?
Comments
-
Come on. There must be an alien theory somewhere?You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0
-
I don't like to talk about it Longshot.0
-
Already today I've already been told to "give it a rest" and been bracketed with David Icke. Some people want me to shut up and have adopted the low tactic of likening me to a conspiracy nut so as to exclude my opinions from the realms of what is considered acceptable, this despite me being of the same mind on this as a former supreme Court judge.rjsterry said:
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are trying to block you, shut you down or marginalise you. To take the Derbyshire police thing, ridicule seems to have been fairly effective. We have had far more draconian measures before and released them when they were no longer needed, principally because they were introduced largely with public consent.shortfall said:
That's not what the country's foremost legal mind thinks. Did you listen to his interview or read his essay in last weeks Times? Probably not. Much easier to try and marginalize me as a tinfoil hat nutter despite having the same opinions on the threat to civil liberties as a Supreme Court JudgePross said:
The conspiracy is in believing that measures being brought in to tackle a public health emergency will be retained and used to control the population indefinitely. Take a look at the security measures brought in for terrorism and you'll see that our judicial system is perfectly happy to control how the politicians and police try to use them (in several cases leading to criticism when the security services have subsequently been unable to keep tabs on someone who went on to carry out an attack). Conspiracy theorists do like to say about how the hard of thinking sheeple will eventually come to see the truth as well.shortfall said:
But this is all happening. The public by and large support these new draconian powers (for now) because they are gripped by panic and have forgotten how to think, and people are informing on their neighbours and the police are spying on people with drones and publicly shaming them and we are all effectively under house arrest. This isn't the realms of conspiracy, it's reality. Let's revisit some of these threads a few months the down the line, I'm obviously not going to convince some of the hard of thinking right now. Truth is the daughter of time as the saying goes.Pross said:
Nope. This looks very conspiracy theory like to me (as does your follow up about people 'welcoming their enslavement') and the bit about neighbours spying on you and reporting you.shortfall said:
If that's aimed at me then would you kindly withdraw? I'm not suggesting that the Government has deliberately done this to instigate a police state, I'm saying that the government is rushing through draconian state and police powers to support a flawed strategy and hopes that they will all be rescinded after 2 years are misplaced. One only has to look at the "anti terror" laws and Civil Contingencies Act that came on the back of 9/11 for a clue. If your aim is to put me in the same bracket as conspiracy theorists, David Icke acolytes and Info Wars nuts then it's a pretty low smear.Pross said:Really? I've heard that it was deliberately released by China to destroy the world economy and that's why they've been able to turn it off so quickly at their end. Also, not a conspiracy theory as such, but I've stopped following one friend after she got the hump when I commented on her post showing maps of the areas most affected by the virus and those that have the most extensive 5G networks (I just pointed out that they basically both reflected the most developed nations that were highly connected to each other, Occam's Razor and all that!). Then add on the comments on here that it is being used by the Government to instigate a police state.
Less serious ones include that it has all coincided nicely with Disney + launching in the UK.
"On the contrary. I don't want to live in a world where we're spoonfed our opinions by experts who can't be challenged. But then I don't like living in the police state we are now either. Give it time and you'll come to agree with me."0 -
I don't know what their current intent is but history suggests that once you cede freedom to the state it's hard to win it back. Lord Sumption agrees. Which parts of his argument do you disagree with?bompington said:
So let's be clear then. Do you or do you not believe that the current government intends to keep any of the emergency restrictions in place once the emergency is over?shortfall said:Much easier to try and marginalize me as a tinfoil hat nutter despite having the same opinions on the threat to civil liberties as a Supreme Court Judge
0 -
I think you are being a bit of a delicate flower about this. Maybe expand on what Sumption said rather than moping about people calling you names.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yes, I've read it and agree to a point about the dangers of creating laws due to hysteria. However, I think he's over-egging it to illustrate a point.shortfall said:
That's not what the country's foremost legal mind thinks. Did you listen to his interview or read his essay in last weeks Times? Probably not. Much easier to try and marginalize me as a tinfoil hat nutter despite having the same opinions on the threat to civil liberties as a Supreme Court JudgePross said:
The conspiracy is in believing that measures being brought in to tackle a public health emergency will be retained and used to control the population indefinitely. Take a look at the security measures brought in for terrorism and you'll see that our judicial system is perfectly happy to control how the politicians and police try to use them (in several cases leading to criticism when the security services have subsequently been unable to keep tabs on someone who went on to carry out an attack). Conspiracy theorists do like to say about how the hard of thinking sheeple will eventually come to see the truth as well.shortfall said:
But this is all happening. The public by and large support these new draconian powers (for now) because they are gripped by panic and have forgotten how to think, and people are informing on their neighbours and the police are spying on people with drones and publicly shaming them and we are all effectively under house arrest. This isn't the realms of conspiracy, it's reality. Let's revisit some of these threads a few months the down the line, I'm obviously not going to convince some of the hard of thinking right now. Truth is the daughter of time as the saying goes.Pross said:
Nope. This looks very conspiracy theory like to me (as does your follow up about people 'welcoming their enslavement') and the bit about neighbours spying on you and reporting you.shortfall said:
If that's aimed at me then would you kindly withdraw? I'm not suggesting that the Government has deliberately done this to instigate a police state, I'm saying that the government is rushing through draconian state and police powers to support a flawed strategy and hopes that they will all be rescinded after 2 years are misplaced. One only has to look at the "anti terror" laws and Civil Contingencies Act that came on the back of 9/11 for a clue. If your aim is to put me in the same bracket as conspiracy theorists, David Icke acolytes and Info Wars nuts then it's a pretty low smear.Pross said:Really? I've heard that it was deliberately released by China to destroy the world economy and that's why they've been able to turn it off so quickly at their end. Also, not a conspiracy theory as such, but I've stopped following one friend after she got the hump when I commented on her post showing maps of the areas most affected by the virus and those that have the most extensive 5G networks (I just pointed out that they basically both reflected the most developed nations that were highly connected to each other, Occam's Razor and all that!). Then add on the comments on here that it is being used by the Government to instigate a police state.
Less serious ones include that it has all coincided nicely with Disney + launching in the UK.
"On the contrary. I don't want to live in a world where we're spoonfed our opinions by experts who can't be challenged. But then I don't like living in the police state we are now either. Give it time and you'll come to agree with me."
We've already seen the Supreme Court rule against the Government introducing 'Draconian' anti-terrorism legislation and it is the whole point of the Supreme Court to decide how a law should be interpreted. Take a look at Supreme Court judgements and you will see the panel often disagree amongst themselves so just because Sumption supports your view it doesn't make it the correct view and why do you consider him to be the country's foremost legal mind? He was just one of a panel of Supreme Court judges and, unlike most of them, he never sat as a full-time judge before his appointment.0 -
I posted the link to his Times article (admittedly behind a paywall) but I did post the most important part, and I have told people where to get his radio interview. I absolutely welcome debate and it's fine if people disagree with me. What isn't fine however is to be put in the same basket as David Icke, presumably so I can be either ignored or patted on the head and treated as though I have mental health problems.rjsterry said:I think you are being a bit of a delicate flower about this. Maybe expand on what Sumption said rather than moping about people calling you names.
0 -
Interestingly, Sumption was arguing last year that the law is taken over the space left by politics yet now seems to be concerned about politicians making decisions. This is worth a read https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/Counsel_0819_SumptionReithLectures_OConnor_v2.pdf and under the heading Consistency is this quote "So to his examples, and Sumption has a curious way with them. Consistency is not his strongest suit". Basically, as I said before you are only prepared to listen to the experts that support your view.0
-
Yep, all of us who've been going hungry for years due to them failing to revoke wartime rationing agree with you whole-heartedly along with those still incarcerated without trial in Northern Ireland.shortfall said:
I don't know what their current intent is but history suggests that once you cede freedom to the state it's hard to win it back. Lord Sumption agrees. Which parts of his argument do you disagree with?bompington said:
So let's be clear then. Do you or do you not believe that the current government intends to keep any of the emergency restrictions in place once the emergency is over?shortfall said:Much easier to try and marginalize me as a tinfoil hat nutter despite having the same opinions on the threat to civil liberties as a Supreme Court Judge
0 -
The reason I cite Lord Sumption is because whatever else you might say about him, he is definitely not a conspiracy theorist or some kind of wack job. By placing my reasoned arguments and genuine concerns about the assault on civil liberties in a thread about conspiracy theories and linking words to me I haven't said like "sheeple" you have stepped outside the rules of reasonable debate.Pross said:Interestingly, Sumption was arguing last year that the law is taken over the space left by politics yet now seems to be concerned about politicians making decisions. This is worth a read https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/Counsel_0819_SumptionReithLectures_OConnor_v2.pdf and under the heading Consistency is this quote "So to his examples, and Sumption has a curious way with them. Consistency is not his strongest suit". Basically, as I said before you are only prepared to listen to the experts that support your view.
0 -
I haven't seen him mention people welcoming their enslavement or even suggesting they are in enslavement despite his job these days being to write essays etc. that will be controversial and provoke debate and as that article I linked to states he isn't exactly consistent in his views.0
-
It was Aldous Huxley who warned of people welcoming their enslavement in his dystooian novel Brave New World. I urge you to read it during lockdown. How prophetic he was.Pross said:I haven't seen him mention people welcoming their enslavement or even suggesting they are in enslavement despite his job these days being to write essays etc. that will be controversial and provoke debate and as that article I linked to states he isn't exactly consistent in his views.
0 -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Powers_Act_1920
Was replaced by
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/contents
So hardly new powers.0 -
It was a GCSE piece when I did English as was Animal Farm. I've also watched The Running Man and it doesn't mean I'm expecting a prime time TV show along the lines of Gladiators but where criminal contestants are hunted and killed.shortfall said:
It was Aldous Huxley who warned of people welcoming their enslavement in his dystooian novel Brave New World. I urge you to read it during lockdown. How prophetic he was.Pross said:I haven't seen him mention people welcoming their enslavement or even suggesting they are in enslavement despite his job these days being to write essays etc. that will be controversial and provoke debate and as that article I linked to states he isn't exactly consistent in his views.
0 -
If you covered it at GCSE then you should have recalled that it was Huxley whose prophecy it was about people welcoming their enslavement. I never attributed the quote to Jonathan Sumption so not sure where you're going with that? You're obviously not receptive to my arguments and you've proven yourself to be misleading and ungenerous in your debating style so I'll leave it there and perhaps we can revisit this at some.point in the future when events have produced some more evidence?Pross said:
It was a GCSE piece when I did English as was Animal Farm. I've also watched The Running Man and it doesn't mean I'm expecting a prime time TV show along the lines of Gladiators but where criminal contestants are hunted and killed.shortfall said:
It was Aldous Huxley who warned of people welcoming their enslavement in his dystooian novel Brave New World. I urge you to read it during lockdown. How prophetic he was.Pross said:I haven't seen him mention people welcoming their enslavement or even suggesting they are in enslavement despite his job these days being to write essays etc. that will be controversial and provoke debate and as that article I linked to states he isn't exactly consistent in his views.
0 -
Pretty sure I saw some leftiebollox conspiracy theory that the evil Torwies were killing off old people to reduce pension costs and care costs. Until they realised this would be literally knocking off core Tory voters."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
They would be replaced as the naive youth gain the wisdom that comes with age.
Mind you, some of us were ahead of our time in gaining this wisdom.
The Martin Peters of politics, that's us.0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Pretty sure I saw some leftiebollox conspiracy theory that the evil Torwies were killing off old people to reduce pension costs and care costs. Until they realised this would be literally knocking off core Tory voters.
That was me, on here at least, but I'm pretty sure you know that was in jest?You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
And money possibly. Its the best way to turn a leftie into a Tory quickly, so I've heard.ballysmate said:They would be replaced as the naive youth gain the wisdom that comes with age.
Mind you, some of us were ahead of our time in gaining this wisdom.
The Martin Peters of politics, that's us."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Tbf I have never been a lefty. Even when a teenager in a mining community with not a lot.Stevo_666 said:
And money possibly. Its the best way to turn a leftie into a Tory quickly, so I've heard.ballysmate said:They would be replaced as the naive youth gain the wisdom that comes with age.
Mind you, some of us were ahead of our time in gaining this wisdom.
The Martin Peters of politics, that's us.0 -
I didn't say you attributed it to Sumption, I was making the point that Sumption's comments didn't go as far as the quote you chose to use about enslavement i.e. you're using his comments to support you but your comments had taken it to another level. If you want an evidence based discussion then try citing examples of emergency measures that have previously been introduced and that have been retained once the circumstances had changed as that seems to be what you are suggesting will happen. I've already mentioned wartime rationing, internment without trail and the Courts reducing the powers of the emergency terror legislation brought in after 9/11 as examples where extreme measures have been brought in and then revoked or scaled back yet you are asking for evidence without producing anything yourself. If the Government trying to keep them against the will of the country then there will be a General Election if 5 years and they can be kicked out and we can elect a Party with a more liberal approach.shortfall said:
If you covered it at GCSE then you should have recalled that it was Huxley whose prophecy it was about people welcoming their enslavement. I never attributed the quote to Jonathan Sumption so not sure where you're going with that? You're obviously not receptive to my arguments and you've proven yourself to be misleading and ungenerous in your debating style so I'll leave it there and perhaps we can revisit this at some.point in the future when events have produced some more evidence?Pross said:
It was a GCSE piece when I did English as was Animal Farm. I've also watched The Running Man and it doesn't mean I'm expecting a prime time TV show along the lines of Gladiators but where criminal contestants are hunted and killed.shortfall said:
It was Aldous Huxley who warned of people welcoming their enslavement in his dystooian novel Brave New World. I urge you to read it during lockdown. How prophetic he was.Pross said:I haven't seen him mention people welcoming their enslavement or even suggesting they are in enslavement despite his job these days being to write essays etc. that will be controversial and provoke debate and as that article I linked to states he isn't exactly consistent in his views.
0 -
-
Here is a transcript of the whole interview.
The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it's not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated. That's what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don't pause to ask whether the action will work. They don't ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognise here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria.
Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.
Q At a time like this as you acknowledge , citizens do look to the state for protection, for assistance, we shouldn't be surprised then if the state takes on new powers, that is what it has been asked to do, almost demanded of it.
A Yes that is absolutely true. We should not be surprised. But we have to recognise that this is how societies become despotisms. And we also have to recognise this is a process which leads naturally to exaggeration. The symptoms of coronavirus are clearly serious for those with other significant medical conditions especially if they're old. There are exceptional cases in which young people have been struck down, which have had a lot of publicity, but the numbers are pretty small. The Italian evidence for instance suggests that only 12% of deaths is it possible to say coronavirus was the main cause of death. So yes this is serious and yes it's understandable that people cry out to the government. But the real question is : Is this serious enough to warrant putting most of our population into house imprisonment, wrecking our economy for an indefinite period, destroying businesses that honest and hardworking people have taken years to build up , saddling future generations with debt, depression, stress, heart attacks, suicides and unbelievable distress inflicted on millions of people who are not especially vulnerable and will suffer only mild symptoms or none at all, like the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister.
Q The executive, the government, is all of a sudden really rather powerful and really rather unscrutinised. Parliament is in recess, it's due to come back in late April, we're not quite sure whether it will or not, the Prime Minister is closeted away, communicating via his phone, there is not a lot in the way of scrutiny is there?
A No. Certainly there's not a lot in the way of institutional scrutiny. The Press has engaged in a fair amount of scrutiny, there has been some good and challenging journalism, but mostly the Press has, I think, echoed and indeed amplified the general panic.
Q The restrictions in movement have also changed the relationship between the police and those whose, in name, they serve. The police are naming and shaming citizens for travelling at what they see as the wrong time or driving to the wrong place. Does that set alarm bells ringing for you, as a former senior member of the judiciary?
A Well, I have to say, it does. I mean, the tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform. They are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government's command. Yet in some parts of the country the police have been trying to stop people from doing things like travelling to take exercise in the open country which are not contrary to the regulations, simply because ministers have said that they would prefer us not to. The police have no power to enforce ministers' preferences, but only legal regulations which don't go anything like as far as the government's guidance. I have to say that the behaviour of the Derbyshire police in trying to shame people into using their undoubted right to take exercise in the country and wrecking beauty spots in the Fells so that people don't want to go there, is frankly disgraceful.
This is what a police state is like. It's a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers' wishes. I have to say that most police forces have behaved in a thoroughly sensible and moderate fashion. Derbyshire Police have shamed our policing traditions. There is a natural tendency of course, and a strong temptation for the police to lose sight of their real functions and turn themselves from citizens in uniform into glorified school prefects. I think it's really sad that the Derbyshire Police have failed to resist that.
Q There will be people listening who admire your legal wisdom but will also say, well, he's not an epidemiologist, he doesn't know how disease spreads, he doesn't understand the risks to the health service if this thing gets out of control. What do you say to them?
A What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there's no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists. We all have critical faculties and it's rather important, in a moment of national panic, that we should maintain them.
Q Lord Sumption, former Justice of the Supreme Court, speaking to me earlier.
0 -
Anyone know why we in UK use the term 9/11 when by normal UK usage it ought to be 11/9? At least 7/7 is non controversial.1
-
I hope you wore your 'Iballysmate said:
Tbf I have never been a lefty. Even when a teenager in a mining community with not a lot.Stevo_666 said:
And money possibly. Its the best way to turn a leftie into a Tory quickly, so I've heard.ballysmate said:They would be replaced as the naive youth gain the wisdom that comes with age.
Mind you, some of us were ahead of our time in gaining this wisdom.
The Martin Peters of politics, that's us.
Thatcher' t-shirt with pride in said mining community. Good way of keeping fit. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm still only seeing one person's opinion here. I've given you 3 examples of emergency measures put in place and rescinded / relaxed either by the Government or the Courts once the situation changed so are you able to provide an example of the opposite?shortfall said:Here is a transcript of the whole interview.
The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it's not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated. That's what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don't pause to ask whether the action will work. They don't ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognise here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria.
Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.
Q At a time like this as you acknowledge , citizens do look to the state for protection, for assistance, we shouldn't be surprised then if the state takes on new powers, that is what it has been asked to do, almost demanded of it.
A Yes that is absolutely true. We should not be surprised. But we have to recognise that this is how societies become despotisms. And we also have to recognise this is a process which leads naturally to exaggeration. The symptoms of coronavirus are clearly serious for those with other significant medical conditions especially if they're old. There are exceptional cases in which young people have been struck down, which have had a lot of publicity, but the numbers are pretty small. The Italian evidence for instance suggests that only 12% of deaths is it possible to say coronavirus was the main cause of death. So yes this is serious and yes it's understandable that people cry out to the government. But the real question is : Is this serious enough to warrant putting most of our population into house imprisonment, wrecking our economy for an indefinite period, destroying businesses that honest and hardworking people have taken years to build up , saddling future generations with debt, depression, stress, heart attacks, suicides and unbelievable distress inflicted on millions of people who are not especially vulnerable and will suffer only mild symptoms or none at all, like the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister.
Q The executive, the government, is all of a sudden really rather powerful and really rather unscrutinised. Parliament is in recess, it's due to come back in late April, we're not quite sure whether it will or not, the Prime Minister is closeted away, communicating via his phone, there is not a lot in the way of scrutiny is there?
A No. Certainly there's not a lot in the way of institutional scrutiny. The Press has engaged in a fair amount of scrutiny, there has been some good and challenging journalism, but mostly the Press has, I think, echoed and indeed amplified the general panic.
Q The restrictions in movement have also changed the relationship between the police and those whose, in name, they serve. The police are naming and shaming citizens for travelling at what they see as the wrong time or driving to the wrong place. Does that set alarm bells ringing for you, as a former senior member of the judiciary?
A Well, I have to say, it does. I mean, the tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform. They are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government's command. Yet in some parts of the country the police have been trying to stop people from doing things like travelling to take exercise in the open country which are not contrary to the regulations, simply because ministers have said that they would prefer us not to. The police have no power to enforce ministers' preferences, but only legal regulations which don't go anything like as far as the government's guidance. I have to say that the behaviour of the Derbyshire police in trying to shame people into using their undoubted right to take exercise in the country and wrecking beauty spots in the Fells so that people don't want to go there, is frankly disgraceful.
This is what a police state is like. It's a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers' wishes. I have to say that most police forces have behaved in a thoroughly sensible and moderate fashion. Derbyshire Police have shamed our policing traditions. There is a natural tendency of course, and a strong temptation for the police to lose sight of their real functions and turn themselves from citizens in uniform into glorified school prefects. I think it's really sad that the Derbyshire Police have failed to resist that.
Q There will be people listening who admire your legal wisdom but will also say, well, he's not an epidemiologist, he doesn't know how disease spreads, he doesn't understand the risks to the health service if this thing gets out of control. What do you say to them?
A What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there's no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists. We all have critical faculties and it's rather important, in a moment of national panic, that we should maintain them.
Q Lord Sumption, former Justice of the Supreme Court, speaking to me earlier.
As for this quote:
"No. Certainly there's not a lot in the way of institutional scrutiny. The Press has engaged in a fair amount of scrutiny, there has been some good and challenging journalism, but mostly the Press has, I think, echoed and indeed amplified the general panic."
Take a read of this and the other 4 parts of his essay (I suggest lots of caffeine if you're tempted to try) and you'll see that just a year ago he was apparently all in favour of Parliament taking control although it's a bit of a ramble so I may be reading it wrong! http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2019/Reith_2019_Sumption_lecture_2.pdf0 -
If you think they were going to die anyway, how would anyone know it was a new cause of the pneumonia?coopster_the_1st said:That the virus has been circulating in the UK before we are told it has been.
I don't buy this because we would have seen deaths of the elderly and vulnerable sooner if that was the case0 -
I heard the Reith lectures at the time and I think I recommended them in Cake Stop as essential listening. They were divided into 3 parts all dealing with the relationship between the citizen, the executive or the state (elected MPs) and the law. His main point was that since the advent of the Human Rights act that judges were having to intrude too much into areas of public life that had previously been decided by consent between the public and parliament. I don't see how this is incongruous with what he is saying about civil liberties, he is simply weighing things in the balance and saying that in this instance some very far reaching powers have been nodded through parliament without scrutiny or even a debate and that based on his extensive experience as a supreme court judge and an eminent historian we might not see them all rescinded. There's nothing controversial in what he says and he doesn't even mention sheeple. Like I say, let's revisit this after the pandemic has passed and a full and thorough public enquiry has looked at any mistakes and consequences. I'm pretty sure that much of what he says will be borne out.Pross said:
I'm still only seeing one person's opinion here. I've given you 3 examples of emergency measures put in place and rescinded / relaxed either by the Government or the Courts once the situation changed so are you able to provide an example of the opposite?shortfall said:Here is a transcript of the whole interview.
The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it's not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated. That's what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don't pause to ask whether the action will work. They don't ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognise here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria.
Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.
Q At a time like this as you acknowledge , citizens do look to the state for protection, for assistance, we shouldn't be surprised then if the state takes on new powers, that is what it has been asked to do, almost demanded of it.
A Yes that is absolutely true. We should not be surprised. But we have to recognise that this is how societies become despotisms. And we also have to recognise this is a process which leads naturally to exaggeration. The symptoms of coronavirus are clearly serious for those with other significant medical conditions especially if they're old. There are exceptional cases in which young people have been struck down, which have had a lot of publicity, but the numbers are pretty small. The Italian evidence for instance suggests that only 12% of deaths is it possible to say coronavirus was the main cause of death. So yes this is serious and yes it's understandable that people cry out to the government. But the real question is : Is this serious enough to warrant putting most of our population into house imprisonment, wrecking our economy for an indefinite period, destroying businesses that honest and hardworking people have taken years to build up , saddling future generations with debt, depression, stress, heart attacks, suicides and unbelievable distress inflicted on millions of people who are not especially vulnerable and will suffer only mild symptoms or none at all, like the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister.
Q The executive, the government, is all of a sudden really rather powerful and really rather unscrutinised. Parliament is in recess, it's due to come back in late April, we're not quite sure whether it will or not, the Prime Minister is closeted away, communicating via his phone, there is not a lot in the way of scrutiny is there?
A No. Certainly there's not a lot in the way of institutional scrutiny. The Press has engaged in a fair amount of scrutiny, there has been some good and challenging journalism, but mostly the Press has, I think, echoed and indeed amplified the general panic.
Q The restrictions in movement have also changed the relationship between the police and those whose, in name, they serve. The police are naming and shaming citizens for travelling at what they see as the wrong time or driving to the wrong place. Does that set alarm bells ringing for you, as a former senior member of the judiciary?
A Well, I have to say, it does. I mean, the tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform. They are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government's command. Yet in some parts of the country the police have been trying to stop people from doing things like travelling to take exercise in the open country which are not contrary to the regulations, simply because ministers have said that they would prefer us not to. The police have no power to enforce ministers' preferences, but only legal regulations which don't go anything like as far as the government's guidance. I have to say that the behaviour of the Derbyshire police in trying to shame people into using their undoubted right to take exercise in the country and wrecking beauty spots in the Fells so that people don't want to go there, is frankly disgraceful.
This is what a police state is like. It's a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers' wishes. I have to say that most police forces have behaved in a thoroughly sensible and moderate fashion. Derbyshire Police have shamed our policing traditions. There is a natural tendency of course, and a strong temptation for the police to lose sight of their real functions and turn themselves from citizens in uniform into glorified school prefects. I think it's really sad that the Derbyshire Police have failed to resist that.
Q There will be people listening who admire your legal wisdom but will also say, well, he's not an epidemiologist, he doesn't know how disease spreads, he doesn't understand the risks to the health service if this thing gets out of control. What do you say to them?
A What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there's no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists. We all have critical faculties and it's rather important, in a moment of national panic, that we should maintain them.
Q Lord Sumption, former Justice of the Supreme Court, speaking to me earlier.
As for this quote:
"No. Certainly there's not a lot in the way of institutional scrutiny. The Press has engaged in a fair amount of scrutiny, there has been some good and challenging journalism, but mostly the Press has, I think, echoed and indeed amplified the general panic."
Take a read of this and the other 4 parts of his essay (I suggest lots of caffeine if you're tempted to try) and you'll see that just a year ago he was apparently all in favour of Parliament taking control although it's a bit of a ramble so I may be reading it wrong! http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2019/Reith_2019_Sumption_lecture_2.pdf0 -
I'm a lover, not a fighter.Stevo_666 said:
I hope you wore your 'Iballysmate said:
Tbf I have never been a lefty. Even when a teenager in a mining community with not a lot.Stevo_666 said:
And money possibly. Its the best way to turn a leftie into a Tory quickly, so I've heard.ballysmate said:They would be replaced as the naive youth gain the wisdom that comes with age.
Mind you, some of us were ahead of our time in gaining this wisdom.
The Martin Peters of politics, that's us. Thatcher' t-shirt with pride in said mining community. Good way of keeping fit.</p>0 -
Member of House of Lords in bumbling old fool shocker.1
