UKC

Last time gov't increased not reduced our freedom...

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Tim Chappell 17 Jul 2014
...When was it, in your opinion?

I was wondering about this as I bimbled across the Gorms today.

Every effing time Westminster/ Holyrood MOVES it makes another thing illegal. Is it ever going to stop? Are we going to go on for ever watching the freedoms that heroes died for tossed, one by one, on the bonfire of politicians' vanity for nothing more than yet another photo-opportunity?

The most recent example I could come up with myself of an increase rather than reduction of our freedoms that was clearly down to the politicians was... the selling-off of council houses.

And yes, I am aware that that is hardly an unproblematic example. But that's my point.

Basically, it seems to me, politicians never give freedoms. They take them away.

Not that I'm grumpy or pessimistic or anything, but really. Laws to "send a message" that it's not all right e.g. to mock up a picture of your ex's head and a porn star's body? Tchuh. Nasty behaviour. But WHY IN HEAVEN'S NAME DO WE NEED A NEW LAW ABOUT IT???

Your grouchily libertarian

TC
 Jim Fraser 17 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

1 October 2010.

Equality Act 2010.
 Jack B 17 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:
29 March 2014. Gay marriage became legal.
Post edited at 21:55
 Duncan Bourne 17 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

CrOW act? The right to roam? (which some might argue we had anyway)
Freedom of information act? (which is trumped by data protection and national security)

But in principle I agree with you. A lot of "new" laws would seem to be covered by existing ones and whenever something goes wrong the "banners" come out. Oh someone has fallen off a ladder! Let's ban ladders!
Lastly just because something is illegal it doesn't mean that you can't get away with it if you have the cash. For instance employment law is flouted all the time.
 Duncan Bourne 17 Jul 2014
In reply to Jack B:

That is quite a good one actually
Tim Chappell 17 Jul 2014
In reply to Jack B:

OK, yep, I'm wrong. Thank you for proving me wrong

That is a very significant addition to our freedoms.

All the same, there is too much salami-slicing elsewhere...
contrariousjim 17 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Hey.. ..the govt aren't going to put up a fight against TTIP are they.. ..more corporate freedom. Ergo more freedom for all of us huh?!!! No brainer...
contrariousjim 17 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Or you might like the infrastructure bill that is currently at committee stage, which has had very little media spotlight, and which allows a private company to put a piece of public land up for sale. I kid you not. All this would be okay if local councils could still say.. ..eff off, except the bill also involves the take-over of such decisions by the land registry, which by the way will also be open to private tendering. Wicked man!
In reply to Tim Chappell:

The main point, surely, is that while there have been several significant steps forward, there have been rather more steps backwards, particularly when it comes to the Common Law, and the traditional separation of government and judiciary.
 Bulls Crack 17 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

The CROW Act 2000 in a somewhat convoluted way
 marsbar 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:
There seems to be more choice in the NHS about going to a hospital that yoh choose not one that is dictated.


Is it just me that thinks there is something pythonesque about this thread?
Post edited at 07:35
 Ander 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Good examples have been given here. But I'll make my point by talking about Russia.

In the USSR Political and personal freedoms were curtailed.
In Russia personal freedoms have been expanded, but political freedom are curtailed- the right to criticise the Government, form political parties, march, etc.

Putin is gambling that if you give people a few personal freedoms then people will be more liklely to not worry about lacking some political freedomes.

I'm not saying that we are Putins Russia, but I think a similar thing is happening here- giving us all the freedoms that don't cost the Government anything- CRoW, Gay marriage, etc. and tightening up on freedoms that impinge Governments scope for action- snoopers bills, right to protest, photographing the police, and so on.

 Martin W 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Jack B:

> 29 March 2014. Gay marriage became legal.

You could argue that removing a prohibition isn't freedom, but reducing previously imposed constraints on freedom.

The NHS patient choice one isn't really about "freedom", it's just a change of policy in a service which is provided by the state, for which the government can pretty much set the rules any way it likes - especially these days when manifestos seem to be regarded as aspirational at best. Just look at what the the current government (which inherited patient choice from the previous administration) has done to the NHS.
 GrahamD 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Arguably you now have the freedom to choose bus operator, train operator, electricity supplier, gas supplier, delivery, telecomms etc.

I'm not adding a value statement to that !
XXXX 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

What would you like to do that you can't?



 PaulTanton 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

I can't see how the selling-off of council houses is a loss of freedom.
 Postmanpat 18 Jul 2014
In reply to PaulTanton:

> I can't see how the selling-off of council houses is a loss of freedom.

Reread it. Tim said that was an the most recent example of an "increase in freedom".
 digby 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Having watched Stacey Dooley's excellent documentary on the effects of gang violence in Chicago last night I'm quite glad we don't live in 'the land of the free'.
 PaulTanton 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't see it as an increase or loss of freedom.

Anyway, that aside, I don't think we do so badly in this country. Some people are always moaning about how cr&p Great Britain is. I think it's wonderful. Yes there are certain things that I don't agree with but on the whole we do fine.
 Timmd 18 Jul 2014
In reply to marsbar:
> There seems to be more choice in the NHS about going to a hospital that yoh choose not one that is dictated.

> Is it just me that thinks there is something pythonesque about this thread?

On the face of it that's a good thing, but what about the people who can't travel to the better hospital for whatever reason?

I'd perhaps rather there was less of a difference between them because they're all really good. Which means paying for them I guess.
Post edited at 10:51
KevinD 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

In theory RIPA. Although its called the snoopers charter it actually reduced the powers available to most public bodies to spy on things.
However, unfortunately, since those public bodies didnt know they had had those powers they then started using them.
 Timmd 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Timmd:

> I'd perhaps rather there was less of a difference between them because they're all really good. Which means paying for them I guess.

Through taxes I mean...
 wintertree 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

The law commission periodically reviews and repeals old laws, e.g. http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/news/2152.htm

Most laws will curtail the freedom of one or more individuals or organisations, so repealing them restores freedoms. Now, most of the laws repealed are so antiquated and/or obsolete that they are unlikely to be used for a prosecution, let alone a successful one.

> But WHY IN HEAVEN'S NAME DO WE NEED A NEW LAW ABOUT IT???

I often wonder this with new laws, especially when some minister gives a statement saying "Of course this law is only for use against really bad terrorists and we would never dream of using it against other people". Right. If that was the case, the law would be worded accordingly...

More generally, I expect individual freedoms to continue to be reduced for the simple reason that the population in the UK is going up, which means the space per person is going down...
XXXX 18 Jul 2014
In reply to XXXX:

3.5 hours and no-ones come up with anything yet
 wercat 18 Jul 2014
In reply to XXXX:

OK, then something this year and improving again next is freedom to get at your occupational pension fund instead of being forced to buy a swindluity
 wercat 18 Jul 2014
In reply to XXXX:

also more freedom to use radio devices without having to apply for a licence
XXXX 18 Jul 2014
In reply to wercat:

I asked for something you want to do, but can't.
Tim Chappell 18 Jul 2014
In reply to XXXX:

Drink alcohol on Scotrail after 9pm; drive at appropriate speeds on over-speed-limited roads; go out to the pub and smoke there if I choose to; protest against the Chinese occupation of Tibet when the Chinese president is on a state visit without being locked up; find out whether the UK really was involved in "rendition" and if so, how much...

you want me to go on? Plenty more.

However, your question is not really to the point. It's not about what *I* can do particularly. It's a good idea to be concerned about liberty in society at large, whether or not you individually are affected. To be spurred into action only when restrictions on liberty affect you personally would smack, to be honest, of lazy selfishness.
 Nordie_matt 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> To be spurred into action only when restrictions on liberty affect you personally would smack, to be honest, of lazy selfishness.

+1

 ByEek 18 Jul 2014
In reply to XXXX:

> I asked for something you want to do, but can't.

How about privicy. Our right to privicy is under constant threat despite the EU Human Rights directive. Tories are looking to replace this and I don't doubt there will be caviats to allow thecstate to snoop. We have also just seen emergency legiskation to force IPs to store our Internet and telephone activity.
XXXX 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Surely that's exactly the point of laws and government. These laws stop individuals from doing things that are in their own personal interest but which are against the good of society. Smoking in pubs is a good example.

I'd argue the smoking ban increased freedoms in general because there are more non-smokers than smokers and I (as a non-smoker) am now free to socialise in pubs without putting my health at risk.



Tim Chappell 18 Jul 2014
In reply to XXXX:

It would have been perfectly easy to organise smokers' rooms in pubs, with heavy-duty air-venting and no doorless access to the bar, not to be entered by bar staff while in use except in an emergency, and to be cleaned only after closing-time fumigation. But no. Nannyism took over and common sense flew out of the window.

Result: pub businesses all over the country are dropping like flies. Knock-on effect: villages are ceasing to be communities.

Full disclosure: I've never smoked a cig in my life, and I absolutely hate being forced to passive-smoke.
 off-duty 18 Jul 2014
In reply to ByEek:

> How about privicy. Our right to privicy is under constant threat despite the EU Human Rights directive. Tories are looking to replace this and I don't doubt there will be caviats to allow thecstate to snoop. We have also just seen emergency legiskation to force IPs to store our Internet and telephone activity.

Just as a side note - the emergency DRIP legislation was just maintaining the current requirement to store the data, rather than imposing something brand new.
 FreshSlate 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> It would have been perfectly easy to organise smokers' rooms in pubs, with heavy-duty air-venting and no doorless access to the bar, not to be entered by bar staff while in use except in an emergency, and to be cleaned only after closing-time fumigation. But no. Nannyism took over and common sense flew out of the window.

> Result: pub businesses all over the country are dropping like flies. Knock-on effect: villages are ceasing to be communities.

> Full disclosure: I've never smoked a cig in my life, and I absolutely hate being forced to passive-smoke.

That sounds massively convoluted compared to 'stand outside and smoke'. Massively simplistic to blame pubs closing down on the smoking ban.
 Offwidth 18 Jul 2014
In reply to Tim Chappel.

Selling council houses didn't increase freedom it increased wealth of those lucky enough to be renting (arguably to buy working class votes). Since then it significantly decreased the freedom of everyone less well off to get decent council rented property. There are loads of freedoms that have gone up and down over the years and every generation had its serious threats. On the current negative side I'd have thought given your job you might be more worried about the threats to academic freedom (under the guise of business improvement); another positive is what has happened to politicians over their expenses.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...