Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

19,000 Emails Against and 0 In Favor of UK Draft Communications Bill

Posted by samzenpus on from the it-looks-close dept.

Qedward writes "Open source writer Glyn Moody discusses the Draft Communications Bill (aka Snooper's Charter) in the UK and how the Joint Parliamentary Committee that had been considering the bill received almost 19,000 emails during its consultation period. He notes: 'Out of 19,000 emails received by the Committee on the subject of the proposed Draft Communications Bill, not a single one was in favor of it, or even agreed with its premise. Has there ever been a bill so universally rejected by the public in a consultation? Clearly, it must be thrown out completely.'"

10 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Unfair comparison by PieMasters · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People always voice their concern when they're against something but rarely express their opinion if they're for it. This makes it unfair comparison. Just saying..

    1. Re:Unfair comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And that is just one of the excuses we are likely to see when the government ignores the consultation and presses on regardless.

      It goes without saying that all the people who objected are probably terrorists and paedophiles.

    2. Re:Unfair comparison by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, yes, the Waitress/Teacher/Street Cleaner Imbalance.

      If you're doing a good job, people generally won't bother to tell you.
      If you're doing a bad one, people will let you know.

      That said, not receiving a SINGLE email for is sign of something - either you didn't do a proper consultation (and those people in favour didn't get the opportunity to reply) or people are vehemently against it. Either way, it means going back to the drawing board rather than pushing through with it.

      That doesn't mean that's what will happen, though.

    3. Re:Unfair comparison by xaxa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People always voice their concern when they're against something but rarely express their opinion if they're for it. This makes it unfair comparison. Just saying..

      I don't think that's true. The article says that on assisted death, there were many replies on both sides.

    4. Re:Unfair comparison by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With this bill there really isn't much of a reason to be outwardly in support of it.

      That alone is reason enough to chuck it out!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Unfair comparison by Adambomb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Basically all this states is that you have those that are willing to write in against it, and those who are ignorant of it.

      Sorry but at a rate of 19K to 0 the statistical significance is there to derive overwhelming disapproval from the result. Do you honestly believe if the populace was MORE aware of the details of the bill that suddenly there'd be an outpouring of support?

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    6. Re:Unfair comparison by tubs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      19,000 people? What difference is that going to make? The government of the day ignored at least 750,000 (+/- some) people who appeared in person to protest. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2765041.stm

      --

      try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die

    7. Re:Unfair comparison by 7-Vodka · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They change their positions because this issue is part of The Agenda.

      This is something the ruling class has been doing for a long time in England. When an issue is part of The Agenda, something the power elite wants passed that harms the public, the government always pushes for it and the shadow government who is powerless to stop it voices opposition.

      Then the people vote the government out and the shadow government in and they switch positions. Now that the new government is in power they start being for the issue and now that the old government is out of power they can afford to be against it.

      What's the solution?

      --

      Liberty.

  2. Yeah, but will the government care? by Coisiche · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When faced by overwhelming public rejection of a Bill has there ever been a modern government that has thrown one out because of that? Clearly they will just change the name and sneak it in with something else. Because what do the public know?

    Government politics is now so completely flawed that it needs to be replaced. I'm with Billy Connolly when he said that "the desire to be an MP [modify as appropriate for your jurisdiction] should automatically prevent you from becoming one."

  3. Quit changing UK spelling to US by gsslay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you are directly quoting someone's writing it is usually considered a professional courtesy not to change the spelling to suit your own preferences.

    He did not say "not a single one was in favor of it", he said "not a single one was in favour of it.