Next up Clegg tells his party “I have always supported the death penalty” and. ” why I hate Liberals.”

No, I’d rather not listen to Clegg and I don’t know why anyone does. If pre-election Clegg and post-election Clegg had anything in common then I might care, at least I could know his opinions and decide to disagree. I’m not going to listen to another round of ‘why I’m doing something completely different to what I said I’d do,’ after he sells out his voters, and frankly I question the sanity of anyone who thinks him worth listening to.

No. I’d rather not listen to Clegg. His words are as meaningful as his signed pledges

why are my comments not showing up? is liberal conspiracy pre-moderating?

@4 It’s laaaaaagggg!

“Any measures must be proportionate………………………blah, blah, blah”

Clegg defends crucifixtion as ‘not inappropriate solution’ to the spread of radical dissenters, free thinkers, fans of Gorgeous George and those wishing to SKYPE their grandparents.

Morrisons to create 40,000 apprenticeships on news
(PS, they all currently work there)
A4E rumoured to be making a bid for soon to be privatised Golgotha

Has there ever been a bigger hypocrite/tosser in Parliament?

Vote Now: Text ‘Pontius Pilate’ 2 Tiberius at ……………………..

Didn’t the libdems at their conference vote against health reform measures and claimed that it would ‘empower’ Nick Clegg to oppose, with greater strength, the NHS reforms?
How’s that working out for the internally-democratic party? Has he started opposing yet?

“There’s a legitimate debate to be had…”

Sounds like the justification relentlessly pushed by creationists – “There’s a legitimate debate to be had between Nongod Evolution and Intelligent God-design – after all, evolution is just a theory…”

Yeah, like – “Limiting the power of the state to scrutinise your every communication and mouseclick online is certainly a given in a modern democracy, but you know, the authoritarian/control-freak community have a valid point of view, so there’s a legitimate debate to be had here….”

Don’t worry guys, Nick remembered there’s a local election in a month, and says he can’t support this bill without some ‘changes’ (you know, like with the health bill) and Dave has given him permission to say so in public.

At some point after 4th May the Tories will string ‘Peado Olympics 9/11′ into a sentence, the papers will act like monitoring everyone’s mouseclicks and email titles isn’t an enormous waste of time and resources, and the Lib Dems will troop through the lobbies to support it, because civil liberties are as close to their hearts as higher education and the NHS.

The Lib Dems played their ‘pretend to be against something to lead the opposition to it up a blind alley’ card with the NHS, it isn’t going to work again.

“There are some very clear principles which I will make absolutely sure we stick to”
Sounds like a manifesto commitment…

“…Any measures will be proportionate…”
Proportionate to what? Is there any evidence to suggest that current investigative powers weren’t enough against all the terrorists so far?

“…they will not sacrifice people’s civil liberties…”
I can support police being able to investigate anyone with a justified warrant: I’m not so keen on the government investigating everyone because ‘just in case’ and ‘you never know’.

“…we will not create a new government database…”
No, we don’t need to. We just access the database from your service provider instead.

“…and we will not give the police new powers to look at the content of people’s e-mails.”
Just your e-mail headers and routes, your IPs and mac addresses, all your searches, all your clicks, all the adverts specially profiled for you, and everyone who e-mails you, everyone who knows you, everyone who knows a friend of a friend. Don’t worry, it’s nothing personal – it’s just the terrorists and the people we temporarily rename terrorists behind closed doors.

I give it three years before there will be a “proportionate” argument for changing the powers to look at everything on the basis that “we already know everything about you and the people you know, so you might as well let us read your e-mails now anyway: we’ve a pretty good idea of what’s in them.”

Secret courts, pervasive surveillance extended to emails and online surfing and now unmarked Police cars patrolling the highways:

A student has died after being hit by an unmarked West Midlands Police car in Birmingham.

The 24-year-old Chinese man was hit by a black BMW as he stepped out in to the road outside Newtown shopping centre at about 19:00 BST on Wednesday.

He was taken to hospital with severe head and back injuries, but died early on Thursday afternoon.

The car had been responding to reports of a stolen vehicle but the force said it had not been involved in a pursuit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-17632629

It’s already a regular sight where I live with sitting LibDem MPs to see a fast car speeding by with a siren wailing and a temporary red light stuck on the roof but without any other Police markings.

@10 – That’s the thing. If intelligence services want this kind of database at GCHQ, they can create it. That’s already within their powers.

This is about pushing the costs onto the ISP’s (and hence customers), and being able to use it for civil and minor crimes.