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.'"

13 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 Adelea · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In the report, they compared this bill with another one, which had appx 50/50 support - so that illustrated that people DO write in on both sides of the fence.

    3. 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.
    4. Re:Unfair comparison by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      They're being added to the "extra surveillance" list as I write this.

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:Unfair comparison by Nursie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Always the way.

      The last big one I remember was ID cards, which was also very skewed, but at the last minute the government decided that any results collected from the internet were unrepresentative and to be ignored.

      It's almost as if your opinion doesn't count if collected electronically, because it's too easy or something. Never mind that it brings down the barriers and allows people to participate just that little bit more in democracy, no citizen, you didn't try hard enough so even though we heard you we feel safe ignoring you.

      And they are safe, frankly. We never vote the bastards out because of this stuff.

    6. Re:Unfair comparison by RaceProUK · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not quite, but not that far off.

      The way it works is we all vote for an MP to represent us, then the party with the majority of MPs is (formally speaking) invited by the reigning monarch to form a government. If a majority isn't achieved (and the requirements vary a little depending on how the vote swings), then parties can team up as a coalition.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    7. 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

    8. Re:Unfair comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Both the Conservatives and the Liberals were opposed to this proposal before the election when Labour called it the Interception Modernisation Program, and both campaigned against 'Labour's Surveillance State', yet when they were elected they simply renamed the IMP to CCDP and are now preparing to implement it with almost no changes from the previous governments proposal
      e.g. http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2009/09/Reversing_the_rise_of_the_surveillance_state.aspx

      If our MPs lie or change their minds they are not representing our views

  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."

    1. Re:Yeah, but will the government care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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."

      Isn't that more or less a rehash of Douglas Adams? "It is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job."

  3. Re:Does anybody really think it matters? by Altanar · · Score: 5, Informative
    Emails to your representative can work.

    "When SOPA-PIPA blew up, it was a transformative event," said Dodd. "There were eight million e-mails [to elected representatives] in two days." That caused senators to run away from the legislation. "People were dropping their names as co-sponsors within minutes, not hours," he said.

  4. 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.