Welcome to the Community

Please choose one of the options below to log in and get stuck in!

Login with PPUK

Leadership

2

Comments

  • Dawud,

    Part III of RIPA gives the police and other authorities powers to require people such as criminal suspects to hand over a decrypted copy of lawfully-seized encrypted data or the keys to decrypt that data. Is this a tolerable limitation on encryption?
  • DanFoxDavies, I think the idea of a 'rotating parliament' has got some legs although I think you would still need a 'HQ' which was the default location. I think taking PMQ's around the country to venues large enough to allow a decent sized public gallery would prove hugely popular and would increase interest and engagement with politics. I agree with the abolition of the City of London Corporation. Yes, unsurprisingly I'm in favour of multi-culturalism and a full celebration of our cultural diversity.
  • Adrian this is a trickier one because I believe, for example, in protecting whistleblowers. I think there would need to be very tight legislation on particular sets of circumstances when decryption could be enforced, for example when the security forces were certain that the encrypted data contained details of planned terrorist attacks on the mainland UK.
  • edited March 2016
    Currently the law specifies a maximum five-year sentence for refusing to hand over decrypted data in terrorism cases. Some critics of the law say that this is ineffective because serious terrorists would rather serve that sentence than a potentially longer one they might get were the data disclosed, or would prefer to hinder the authorities from unravelling a plot in time. Would you be in favour of increasing the sentencing powers of the courts in cases such as those you describe?
  • No. I think that someone who is determined not to disclose the data is not going to be swayed however big the sentence.
  • In which case, why have the law at all? The law you're proposing would be ineffective in every case in which it applies and terrorists would see the likely penalties as an occupational hazard rather than compelling.
  • Well said DanFoxDavies, all aboard the Pirate Party vessel.
    Bluebird
  • Adrian I think it is reasonable to insist on decryption in the circumstances I outlined. If the person chooses not to comply that is a matter for them. I assume you are opposed to the law in its entirety??
  • In the circumstances you describe, the consequences of a person choosing not to comply would be the presumably successful commission of a serious terrorist act that might otherwise have been prevented.
  • What is your solution then? How are you going to force them to comply? I'm sure as a Pirate you're not advocating the use of torture?
  • Regarding multiculturalism: good, just making sure we are on the same page here - I have encountered some unlikely combinations of backgrounds with viewpoints about this subject in the past.
    With regard to 'terrorism', do you see attempting to foil terrorist attacks as the most effective measure in real terms, given that the massive dragnet of surveillance has yet to do so demonstrably once, or do you see alternatives in dealing with this threat which, in terms of probable cause, often seems to have its roots in the years-earlier foreign policies and actions of the countries so attacked?
  • edited March 2016
    I refer also here to the reconciliatory efforts made in recent years with the Irish.
    EDIT: please also consider the Norwegian approach to dealing with extremist killers: prosecute them under the normal criminal law. Don't give them the martyrdom or the oxygen of publicity that the 'terrorist' tag affords.
  • Dan I opposed pretty much all of our foreign interventions from the Falklands onwards and certainly Iraq and Afghanistan which are the root cause of much that has happened since. Unfortunately you can't put the genie back in the bottle but a commitment not to engage in such interventions in the future would be a start and ending efforts to effectively criminalise sections of the community with the 'prevent' strategy would also help. I think a frank admission and apology over previous interventions might help to diffuse the situation as well so, yes, there are things you can do that would make us less of a target in the first place. I refer to my earlier comments on health in that it should be about prevention first, well the same is true of defence policy. Follow policies that will prevent you from being attacked. In recent years we have been doing the exact reverse.
  • The Falklands really depends on whose history books you read, but AFAIK pretty much all the residents there now want to stay with UK rather than Argentina - do correct me if I am wrong.

    Dictatorships (like in Iraq) and horrid gangs of extremist types (like the Taliban) are a nightmare to watch at a distance, but it seems any claimed attempt to get rid of them in a 'regime change' only puts another one in their place and takes us down the path to becoming just as bad ourselves. As for IS/ISIS/Daesh, I don't think anyone really has a constructive answer for how to deal with them.
  • Dawud,

    I'm not advocating anything. I'm just asking questions.
  • Dawud, FYI, the Falkland Islands were already a British colony 100 years before Argentina [the nation] was conceived, so hardly 'theirs' by right, and as DanFox points out, most of the residents there wish to remain British citizens. And which sections of the community do you say are criminalised? At any given stage of a war, peoples of that ethnicity / war zone / area are bound to become 'unwelcome' in a host nation. My own family suffered as such during WW2, given that 3 of my 4 Grandparents weren't English, it's something you have to get used to, and not bleating about 'Human Rights' or similar. As the old adage states: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!" No point joining a 'ship' unless you're prepared to work your passage...

    Bluebird
  • Bluebird, I certainly can stand the heat and have just been answering questions honestly as I believe the object of the excercise is to let people know my personal views not to give people what I think they want to hear. I had already added the earlier caveat that the leadership in this party is only a conduit for the wider party's views and were I in a leadership role I would present the collective view of the membership. As an anti-imperialist you wouldn't expect me to back the Falklands War and I stand by my opposition to it. I accept that this is a minority view. As for Human Rights, I think they are worth standing up for and so if you don't mind I will continue to 'bleat' about them ad infinitum. As for your own situation why confine your ambitions to the DL post? We clearly have differing positions on a range of issues so why not run against me for leader (assuming we are both nominated) and give the membership a real choice of direction?
  • Dear Dawud, Thank you. No disguising my leaning, anymore yours on these matters. Please bleat away, and agreed, it would be interesting to see which way PP's membership would vote on a leader [red or blue] in this case. I shall give it some thought, though will look to launch my branch again to gauge interest. This party needs foot soldiers, not just keyboard warriors to get anywhere, and so it is...
    Bluebird
  • ThyPirateDaveThyPirateDave South Wales
    edited March 2016
    I think it's important to note Dawud accepts he's in the minority on Falklands but was open and honest about his answer anyway. (By view I of course refer to who it belongs to)

    This does however raise the question that what would you (Dawud) do in the event Party policy or membership view was strongly against a view you held.

    For example, you have to give comment on a topic such as Falklands, knowing the party disagrees with you - what do you do?
  • I was in that position both in my early years as a Labour candidate and more recently whilst in RESPECT when I had to present the leaderships position as being against Scottish Independence whereas I myself am in favour. It is not a particular problem simply something that goes with the territory. Certainly I would not lose any sleep over answering a question on a conflict long since gone. I suppose like anyone else there are certain 'deal breakers' where I would draw the line and have to consider my position, for example if the party adopted an obviously racist or sexist policy on a particular issue but looking at the nature of the party and its membership I would have thought that is very unlikely to happen.
  • edited March 2016
    If you were in an election up against an SNP candidate, how would you differentiate your position and effectively retain the interest of the Scottish voters?
  • Why has my comment been deleted?
  • It wasn't, it was moved to a new thread to start a new discussion: https://community.pirateparty.org.uk/discussion/295/we-need-to-work-on-our-image#latest
  • ^ Very good. Thanks for that. Didn't even realise that there was a new thread.
  • To chip in on PPI - The organisation was set up to help countries round the world set up their own PPs when the movement first started to spread. In most places where political freedom and sufficient interested people exist, this work has been completed (usually with no noticeable help from PPI). The organisation kept trying to find an ongoing purpose by spreading out into an international governance and policy role that it had no mandate for, and became increasingly difficult to deal with. Vague procedures that were probably not being followed, opaque finances, impenetrable language barriers, mixed with abrasive personalities, horrendous personality clashes... but worst of all were the arguments. I used to dread opening mail from the PPI mailing lists. Eventually, after a huge amount of time and effort spent trying to get the organisation back on track, we looked at the huge drain on our time, resources, patience and indeed happiness, weighted it up against the potential benefits if the organisation ever did become productive, and left.
  • On the left/right issue, I think that finding a balance between leader/deputy leader would be a good solution. In our position we can pick our battles, and if there's a deep division on policies or philosophy, at this stage of the party's development we can simply talk about other areas. For example, Labour and the Conservatives are only just starting to confront their colossal internal divisions on Europe, until now they have successfully adopted a 'let's not stir that one up' policy.

    I think it's worth mentioning that when I was leader I was much further right than the average party member, I'd identify myself as a libertarian, small-government, free-market capitalist, and the last is a term some people round here would consider an insult!
  • I don't know, I viewed the PPI emails as my daily (or weekly) round of internet comedy! :smiley:
  • Dan, sorry for the delay in replying, had two Open University assignments to get done over the weekend and as usual I was miles behind on my studies so had to go into lockdown!! The SNP, seen up close, are nothing like the benign anti-austerity party that they appear to be south of the border. Their rhetoric is not repeated in their actions and health and education are much worse up here, notwithstanding the free prescriptions and tuition fees. The numbers in full-time education have fallen dramatically and waiting times are up in hospitals across the board. The merging of all the Scottish police forces into a single unit, Police Scotland, has produced a very authoritarian police force which is armed as routine. It is also wildly inefficient, the most high profile story recently being that of a couple whose car crashed off the motorway and although the incident was reported within hours the police did not attend for 4 days by which time the surviving passenger was critical and later died. The SNP constantly blame Westminster for their woes but the reality is that they already have plenty of powers to make a real difference but choose not to use them for political reasons. So, no, I would have no problems at all differentiating our positions from that of the SNP. Thanks to the others for padding out the information about the PPI. Sounds like we are well shot of them, although other vehicles for inter-party dialogue and co-operation should also be explored.
  • One of the things I've always been quite keen to keep in mind is I'm no longer in any of the parties I once joined and this is the party I'm staying in.

    This means having a very clear identity and being ready to openly and publicly call out parties I once considered myself aligned with. You have to be able to criticise both ends of the scale. Give the Greens a kicking on lacking evidence and give UKIP an equal thrashing over breeding a fear culture.

    Once you've sufficiently told the world how bad these other parties are, you're going to be working with their on the ground activists at protests and other projects, especially if you get into government.

    We're going to be in the minority for a long time and especially when it comes to our most likely seats to win, local ones, you're going to be sitting next to left wing and ring wing parties/indies. You'll be sitting around the table with the National Front, Greens, UKIP, Labour, Cons... you name it and you're going to have to find a way to accomplish Pirate objectives with all ends of the political scale.

    Do you feel that is something you could do? Could you shake hands with the National Front? Could you take on your old party at a debate?
  • Drowz0r, I have no problems taking on any parties in debate or in working with them at any level of government. I have a personal policy of not shaking hands with fascists (NF/BNP/Britain First) but I will share platforms with them and work with them as necessary. Note that my reason for not shaking hands is for what their party represents, it is not a value judgement one way or the other on them as an individual. For example I'm sure many of us are aware that there are fascists within the UKIP. However because the party itself is not a fascist one I would shake hands with their candidates regardless of what I suspect to be their individual views. It's a minor point in the wider scheme of things but, I feel, a symbolic one.
Sign In or Register to comment.