Said this??

'The best way to take control over a people and control them
utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode
rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible
reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights
and freedoms being removed until past the point at which
these changes cannot be reversed'

'Cos to me it's starting to sound like that's what's happening.

You're very close......

i guess at adlof hitler said that or my other shout is chey gavara, but he said some good quotes like if i was to start a revolution again i wouldnt do it with thousands i would do it with a hundred and belief as belief can over come everything.

You mean from the scope of one CCTV camera to the next??

Co-incidentally.

Someone didn't read the 'imperceptible' sentence.......

I don't agree with Mr Hitler at all. The first thing any dictator worth his salt should do is to come right out in the open and take away people's right to display uncivil behaviour.
Bollocks to all this sneaking it up on them!

We don't need Logan's Run marra. Have you seen the size of most people out and about? We were out on Tuesday to catch the one nice day of the week (a nice trip to the seaside!), and everyone seemed to be huge. Obesity will solve the pensions crisis!

Anyway this thread was dead before it began and has gone on longer than it had the right to: I hereby invoke Godwin's Law!

Well you've named three there Mr John, which you may not personally care about, but what about if you wanted to:

Smack your kids
Call a man from Pakistan 'Paki, when he can call you 'Brit' without compunction
Chalk on a 'blackboard'
Punch a burglar in your home
Demand the presence of a policeman
Protest in the streets
Refuse a council official access to your home


Need I go on??

Have you noticed how nothing has been said about the new 'white boards'? Surely that is racist towards us!

You brought Hitler into it so tell me how many of those measures he might have introduced as a means towards controlling the people. I can only count two.
And anyway even if you're right you automatically lose the argument for mentioning Adolf in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

It's the first time I ever saw the quotation, I thought it was apposite and worth commenting on. I have no idea what Godwins Law is and I haven't studied National Socialism.

But the amount of times I've heard 'ah well if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear,' and 'if you're not with us, you're against us' all in the name of fighting a very amateur bunch of crazed islamists, all of whom they claim to know and lets face it, didn't start on us, makes me wonder where it's all leading.

I don't personally have to give a fu ck, I made a considered decision to live in a totalitarian Communist Regime and I'm happy as a pig in shit.

Then why has this Government found the need to put so much more legislature on the Statute Book??

And OK ignore the blackboard/Paki/Brit one, rabble rousing, yes.

But you ignored the one about protesting in the street and that was one of most fundamental rights of a free society.

Kew - You can't allow people to have free speech, if you do they question everything. You've just got to accept everything that our government say, we are the good guys, Blair/Brown would never tell a few porkies to get us fighting illegal wars or anything like that would they?

You've just got to trust them.....

Interestingly enough I heard a report on Radio 4 this morning from Russia. Apparently there is a resurgence in Stalinism, seeing the man as a great hero. This follows the greater freedoms (supposedly) that Rissians now enjoy. Maybe it says more about the human condition than politics.
Anyway it's all a great conspiracy controlled by 12 powerful people who are really Lizards - if I've heard David Icke (ex Coventry & Hereford keeper) right.

The Polacks want to go back to Communism as well so I'm told.

When I have kids I'm gonna knock cack out of them if they misbehave.

What other reasons would I want to have them for?

I wouldn't want to be your wife.

But then you would be the "good cop" and they'd think you were great!

You might argue that certain groups of people ,paedophiles eg,should be on a database, but as a rule I think the idea of a national database is totally horrifying.
When my daughter started 2ndary school, I found her class were being given questionnaires every now and then in school time. No parents had been approached for permission. . In amongst innocuous things like 'What is your favourite subject?' and 'Do you like maths?' were questions like 'Are your parents divorced?' and 'Has there been any trouble at home lately?'
All this was being kept on some database somewhere, for reasons unknown, until some parents complained. The school tried to say that individuals couldn't be traced and it was all for statistics. Needless to say, individuals can perfectly easily be traced, as and when.

I don't want all my darkest secrets to be kept in a database either. As for DNA records, if people care about their DNA being kept secret they could set an example by not leaving it all over the place on the fag ends they chuck away!

oops. posted 2ce

Well, I don't have any dark secrets really...it's more that I like to have a private life.
It's the idea of the right to a private life being eroded that bothers me about databases....so much so that I'd probably say I'd rather chance my luck with terrorists than be databased.

Anyway, people are fixated with trying to eliminate the risks of life. We'll never do it...however many 'safeguards' we have

[quote="Cornelius AtweasleWell, I don't have any dark secrets really...[/quote]

Yeah, right! [/quote]

Sorry, you are....?

I'd agree with that sentiment - I 'd rather run the risk of something bad happening to me (quite remote really) than be completely 100% monitored and documented in everything I do/say and everywhere I go, with complete control over everything by the state.

Me too.

There's a fairly comprehensive discussion on the "you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" argument here (albeit a bit US centric)...

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/10/2054219

Warning: the document referred to is a pretty tedious piece of reading

I personally wouldn't put up any of those counter arguments.
My own very simple approach is "What I do/think/own is none of your business; I'm not answerable to you I and I have no need to justify my actions."

Aye....here's to the unassailable right of eternal bolshieness

Why should I have to give a reason?

Hitler was a non smoker who banned it in all government offices and a vegetarian to boot who was opposed to blood sports ...... he should slot perfectly into the role of a politician in the present day with those 'qualities'...apart from his mass murdering tendencies that is .... mind you we have invaded two countries

mmm call someone from pakistan a paki

do you know azerbijian - they are called azeris
afghanistan - afghanis
uzbekisatn - uzbeki
tajikisatn - tajik
kazakstan - kazak

do you follow?

Don't tell me - the answer is Pakistani, right?

And a Briton of Pakistani origin is called ... ?

a briki, someone who builds houses I think

Because it's fallible, like all forensic evidence and all forensic scientists.

Ujpal Utterthwaite.