Nonsense. I don't see anyone claiming that they'll only repeal what's proposed on this site.
Which hasn't been claimed by anyone. The site is a symptom: LD is the Party for paying feel-good lip service rather than being clear about what you want and following it through. The language of the manifesto hinted at this.
If you think it "will inevitably be voted against in any referendum", then the same would certainly happen with any PR system.
You sure? But more insidious is that "no-one really wants AV" (which is true) will be interpreted as "no-one really wants PR" (which is false).
The Goverment already repealed ID cards and biometric passports - there was no compromise.
ID cards: why would you need a compromise? The Tories also wanted to scrap this, along with the National Identity Register.
Biometric passports: Ties in with data now not collected above - you could collect fingerprints separately, of course, but why would you? The content of passports is really up to America, IOW they set the standard for passports not requiring a visa.
Had they not, we would almost certainly have a Conservative government now, with no tempering of the more extreme Conservative policies.
What are you talking about? Had the Tories formed a minority government, the LD MPs would have had a (more) free vote. As it is, the LDs are reined in by the Clegg-Cameron duet.
Read again what I said: The only possible advantage of this coalition is a tempering of more extreme Tories, i.e. those who may rock the boat in favour of more extreme Conversativism in the longer term. Any extreme policies wouldn't have actually got through on a minority government. But what we do have instead is lots of standard issue Conservative policies with no opposition.
How do you know they didn't try as had as they could?
Absolute time spent is the most glaring piece of evidence. I've spent longer helping two dogs negotiate peace. No, Rome wasn't burning, despite Tory claims.
They were in a weak position because they and the Conservatives both knew that only the Conservatives could afford to run another election campaign if no government could have been formed.
Assuming that the alternative was forcing another election. Assuming that the amount of money spent on another campaign would make the difference. Assuming that a lower profile LD would result in LD voters flocking to Tories rather than Labour.
Read Crispin Allard's very short and to-the-point article in Representation. He asserts that, in aggregate terms, neither can be assessed as more proportional. But AV favours moderate/close parties "which are good at attracting vote transfers". In particular, he contrasts 1992 and prior elections with the 1997 election: the proximity of LD and New[tm] Labour meant that AV would have further solidified Labour's lead.
IOW, it is a matter of opinion of alternative Parties, and AV may serve to promote homogeneity.
you would have known that that was not what the language actually meant
Yet the LD coalition government has done precisely that. Perhaps you should be more careful when reading manifestos in order to see what principles the Party is more willing to give up.
a lot of people seem to be forgetting that the LibDems did not win the election and we don't have a LibDem government
The Lib Dems were not forced into forming a coalition with anyone. The Lib Dems had the opportunity to try much harder to require various policies as a condition of coalition, yet they required almost nothing. The only possible advantage of this coalition is a tempering of more extreme Tories who would otherwise destabilise the current government.
At least LD in opposition did some opposition (as well as not draining the pool of core supporters). Unless Labour recovers on less Blairite lines, we may now enjoy no credible opposition in the House of Commons.
Which proves that you haven't actually read the manifesto and are just trolling.
You pasted a quote from the manifesto. I discussed what the language of the quote actually means. In fact, by analysing the language I've provided support for your argument - the intention of the LDs was to find out what the British find important rather than to merely assert "civil liberties are important" - but you may be so blinkered by support for the Party that you're not even paying attention.
How much of that they can actually get past the Conservatives is questionable (although quite a bit of that was in the Conservative manifesto too) but all the things you say are not there actually are there.
I didn't say something was "not there". I said that the language implies that a selection is going to be made. You're referring to the introduction of p.87 and the list of specific promises pp. 93-95. From that all we've had any push for is (1) what the Tories already wanted; plus (2) the interpretation of the wording I've provided above.
My post is precisely because I've read the manifesto and tried to understand it in terms of "what is going to actually happen" in the light of coalition LD behaviour.
Restore civil liberties because civil liberties are so precious to the British people,
i.e. the classical liberty of freedom of expression (deployed as speech, assembly, photography etc., all coming under the same principle); instead quite specifically aiming to:
Restore only those civil liberties which are somehow identified as "precious" to the British people.
This has further degenerated to:
Consider those civil liberties which a small unrepresentative set of Internet lurkers with too much time on their hands (who may not even be eligible British voters) want to babble about.
Selectively pick and reinterpret, proposing instead a compromise which no majority wants.
If a man with a history of duplicity offers you something which appears too good to be true, you do not say, "Where do I sign?" Instead you ask yourself, "How is he trying to trick me this time?"
(For a model of past effectiveness, see the Number 10 e-petitions scheme: to reinforce the government's will where in agreement, and to be ignored otherwise.)
Well, I could give you mounds of evidence, but here's what stands out:
Clegg, the overt organiser of this circus, has sold out his Party to a power shak^Hring agreement, abandoning pretty much every core platform on which they established their vote. More insidiously, he's accepting arrangements which make it look like the LDs are pushing for their manifesto when in fact they're doing precisely the opposite. For example, his Party has steadfastly put voting reform to Proportional Representation at the top of the political agenda for decades, but now he is proposing the Alternative Voting method - a "compromise" system even less Proportional than FPTP which will inevitably be voted against in any referendum, ensuring the status quo.
The LDs have always been the "Party who cares"[tm], i.e. proposes more than just slight tweaks, and they've always been laughed at because, "They'd never really do that and can only say that because they'll never get into power." Well, now they do have a certain degree of power. And they're doing none of what they said. Instead, as just illustrated, their method will be to listen, propose a "compromise" which no-one wants at all, then wait until it's not imposed and nothing changes at all. The exceptions will be where laws were already going to be tweaked, in which case this site will be used as an excuse (digital economy, personal welfare).
tl;dr We are living in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. There is neither the framework, education, means nor (most importantly) interest to listen directly to the people. Even referendums are barely an exception as they're worded precisely by the government and (hi, EU!) sometimes just repeated until the population is worn down and the right answer is obtained.
Einstein:
Results of his work: atomic bomb => Nagasaki, Hiroshima.
Regretted result of his work.
Python:
Result of their work: every fucking geek on the bastard planet reciting the same sketches for the thousandth time and finding it just as hilarious as the first. STOP IT. WE GET IT. YOU CAN RECITE SOMEONE ELSE'S COMEDY. WELL DONE. NOW CREATE SOMETHING NEW.
Do the group regret the result of their work, though afraid to admit it?
"Compulsory" and "you can opt out" are mutually fucking exclusive, jackass.
No matter how angry you get, your handwaving won't increase the soundness of your argument. It is compulsory to follow an opt out procedure if you don't want your organs to be harvested, therefore the organ donation system is compulsory. You must get involved with the system whether you want to or not.
By contrast, "compulsory" and "opt in" are likely to be mutually exclusive because you can do nothing and find yourself facing no obligations. The system adds no compulsion.
The NY donation system doesn't punish you for not being an organ donor.
The NY donation system punishes you if you do not have the ability and opportunity to learn the donation system and take the time to follow the appropriate bureaucratic procedure to opt out. It does this by harvesting organs from your dead body without your consent.
Similarly, you gave my sheep consent to graze on your lawn because you didn't sign the opt-out form on my desk and advertised in the appropriate basement.
You, Sir, ought to start a business as a spammer. According to part 419 of the Universal Spam Code, it's moral if you put a genuine opt-out link at the bottom, rite?
Well played, Sir. But seriously, it works either side of the tank, even when I've obsessively washed my hands so as not to pollute the aquarium. Some fish seem to have excellent visual acuity, so maybe they do care whether something looks exactly like one of them or not... so, what must be modified in the static appearance / movement for their responses to change?
But I'd rather die young than live a long life as a bootlick, and I've no base urge to jack into the gene pool. So it looks like we can agree to disagree!
Given the organ donation system in NYC is (apparently now) not compulsory, and simply opt-out, yes, precisely.
You errant implications notwithstanding (moral universalism; law <=> moral majority), the donation system is compulsory: you must opt out unless you want your organs used. What is not compulsory is, quite specifically, for a rational adult informed of the relevant law (and all adults are informed of all laws relevant to them - this is why we don't need lawyers) to donate organs.
Otherwise, everything the government requires you to do from paying taxes to doing time is, "not compulsory, and you simply have to X [if you want the government to not force Y]."
So it's morally justifiable if most people don't have objections.
Excellent.
Tomorrow morning you will find yourself sans property. Since, as is true of almost every man, "most people" don't even care whether you live or die, why the hell should the law assume they do?
Particularly if it means I get to have a TV for my kitchen and a decent set of furniture for the new office.
FWIW, the only time I'd consider not being on the organ register is if opt-in became automatic. I put my health where my mouth is: for example, I've opted out from central computerised health service records. In emergencies this might mean a doctor not being aware of my medical history, but it's far more important that I do not support a system ripe for abuse.
British polls frequently suggest support for the death penalty. It's one of the best arguments against the direct will of the majority.
A western representative democracy's power is in its fettering of tyrants: undesirables can soon be replaced. Its purpose is not to give a majority the power to do whatever they want to a minority.
The piece has a valid point, if hurriedly written, but it's not really covering the topic of "Repealing unnecessary laws". It's not even answering the provided question, "Which offences do you think we should remove or change, and why?"
Rewrite it in terms of identifying laws which cover police misconduct, giving examples of abuse by police which would be better tackled under your proposals. Incorporate a summary of relevant reports from well-known organisations or other commissions. Compare with police complaint procedures in the EU. Discover which MPs support your ideas and mention any work they have done.
Finally, write concisely, repeatedly hitting the voter with powerful facts. It's much harder than formulating an annoyed rant but much more effective.
One case is about insuring against deliberately hampering a police investigation,
Not assisting the police is by no reasonable definition "deliberately hampering a police investigation". Deliberately hampering might include destroying evidence, or lying to the police, or resisting arrest. You cannot deliberately hamper by doing nothing.
Consider for a moment an alternative world in which it is illegal to not actively help the police.
and the other is about forcing false confessions. I simply don't see why allowing one necessarily implies we need to follow the other.
You're asserting that the state should be able to require you to actively cooperate in finding you guilty, using some argument which assumes that the state has a privilege to force "compliance" on the innocent. Do you not think that people in interview are encouraged to confess, even when their guilt is in doubt? Is the problem not that the man under suspicion is not saying what the police want him to say?
That's a separate issue. It's not actually a problem with "innocent until proven guilty".
If a man is innocent then why should he be forced to testify against himself? And if he doesn't testify against himself why should this make him automatically guilty of anything? He should surely be innocent of the crime for which he was initially arrested until he is proven guilty of that crime - not until he can be charged with new crimes simply because of procedural bureaucracy.
Lazy Daily Haters would, accurately or otherwise, regard themselves as much defenders of freedom and the middle class as GROLIES.
But yes, that comes under (3), the abolition of the red tape that is Human Rights. Note that the Act also formally absolutely abolishes the death penalty, which AIUI was technically legal in the UK for certain military offences before 1998. Other-pond-siders may wish to note that it was an application of the European Convention on Human Rights, the thirteenth protocol of which also forbids the death penalty - though not all states accept all protocols!
Cameron's a fucking brilliant PR man. He knows that the Internet is mostly paTrolled by lazy, middle-class Libertardian types with way too much time on their hands. The loudest voices on this site will not represent the population, but people obsessed with:
Irrelevant: Anti-piracy bills which were unworkable anyway;
Irrelevant: Cannabis;
Insidious: Red tape which protects the worker or the consumer;
Insidious: Benefits which tend to be abused by a small minority.
Non-single-issue laws which have a significant impact on the freedom or purse of the public, such as those related to the right to remain silent or surveillance or regulatory bodies or corporate taxation or military spending or public-private partnerships are far too complex to be properly analysed by the lazy group dominating the forum, let alone able to be tackled in terms of "keep or repeal". And Cameron knows this.
This is a compliance issue. In certain circumstances it is entirely appropriate for people to be required to comply with police. I suppose next you'll be complaining that people have to pull over to the side of the road when a policeman pulls them over.
Oh, that's awful. You might as well argue that not confessing to every unsolved murder under interrogation is "a compliance issue". There are very specific circumstances in which people may be reasonably required to comply with police. In particular, the police may detain you for a limited period when there is a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. There is your reasonable exception, not proof of any rule.
RIPA makes me guilty of the crime of not speaking in a particular way, regardless of whether I am guilty of anything else. We have recently lost our right to remain silent, but not speaking wasn't an offence: it was instead (insanely) judged acceptable to consider "not speaking" as evidence against you. But with RIPA the government goes further: now it is a crime to not speak.
Now some may argue that a man should also be compelled to provide fingerprint / DNA / semen samples, and that refusing to provide samples should be grounds for force to be used to collect and/or further prosecution and/or evidence of guilt. I'm not clear whether and when each of these should apply. But none of this involves convincing a man to say things which may cause him to lose his freedom on pain of loss of freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. I don't see anyone claiming that they'll only repeal what's proposed on this site.
Which hasn't been claimed by anyone. The site is a symptom: LD is the Party for paying feel-good lip service rather than being clear about what you want and following it through. The language of the manifesto hinted at this.
If you think it "will inevitably be voted against in any referendum", then the same would certainly happen with any PR system.
You sure? But more insidious is that "no-one really wants AV" (which is true) will be interpreted as "no-one really wants PR" (which is false).
The Goverment already repealed ID cards and biometric passports - there was no compromise.
ID cards: why would you need a compromise? The Tories also wanted to scrap this, along with the National Identity Register.
Biometric passports: Ties in with data now not collected above - you could collect fingerprints separately, of course, but why would you? The content of passports is really up to America, IOW they set the standard for passports not requiring a visa.
Had they not, we would almost certainly have a Conservative government now, with no tempering of the more extreme Conservative policies.
What are you talking about? Had the Tories formed a minority government, the LD MPs would have had a (more) free vote. As it is, the LDs are reined in by the Clegg-Cameron duet.
Read again what I said: The only possible advantage of this coalition is a tempering of more extreme Tories, i.e. those who may rock the boat in favour of more extreme Conversativism in the longer term. Any extreme policies wouldn't have actually got through on a minority government. But what we do have instead is lots of standard issue Conservative policies with no opposition.
How do you know they didn't try as had as they could?
Absolute time spent is the most glaring piece of evidence. I've spent longer helping two dogs negotiate peace. No, Rome wasn't burning, despite Tory claims.
They were in a weak position because they and the Conservatives both knew that only the Conservatives could afford to run another election campaign if no government could have been formed.
Assuming that the alternative was forcing another election.
Assuming that the amount of money spent on another campaign would make the difference.
Assuming that a lower profile LD would result in LD voters flocking to Tories rather than Labour.
Why don't you see the doctor about that knee-jerk and read the original document here with more thoughts here (pp.64-66)?
On a plus note, at least the Boundaries Commission can continue delivering ;-).
Read Crispin Allard's very short and to-the-point article in Representation. He asserts that, in aggregate terms, neither can be assessed as more proportional. But AV favours moderate/close parties "which are good at attracting vote transfers". In particular, he contrasts 1992 and prior elections with the 1997 election: the proximity of LD and New[tm] Labour meant that AV would have further solidified Labour's lead.
IOW, it is a matter of opinion of alternative Parties, and AV may serve to promote homogeneity.
you would have known that that was not what the language actually meant
Yet the LD coalition government has done precisely that. Perhaps you should be more careful when reading manifestos in order to see what principles the Party is more willing to give up.
a lot of people seem to be forgetting that the LibDems did not win the election and we don't have a LibDem government
The Lib Dems were not forced into forming a coalition with anyone. The Lib Dems had the opportunity to try much harder to require various policies as a condition of coalition, yet they required almost nothing. The only possible advantage of this coalition is a tempering of more extreme Tories who would otherwise destabilise the current government.
At least LD in opposition did some opposition (as well as not draining the pool of core supporters). Unless Labour recovers on less Blairite lines, we may now enjoy no credible opposition in the House of Commons.
Explanation needed, perhaps, but not "citation".
Try starting here. Don't forget to follow the link giving the detail of LD Roy Jenkins' (RIP!) opinion.
Which proves that you haven't actually read the manifesto and are just trolling.
You pasted a quote from the manifesto. I discussed what the language of the quote actually means. In fact, by analysing the language I've provided support for your argument - the intention of the LDs was to find out what the British find important rather than to merely assert "civil liberties are important" - but you may be so blinkered by support for the Party that you're not even paying attention.
How much of that they can actually get past the Conservatives is questionable (although quite a bit of that was in the Conservative manifesto too) but all the things you say are not there actually are there.
I didn't say something was "not there". I said that the language implies that a selection is going to be made. You're referring to the introduction of p.87 and the list of specific promises pp. 93-95. From that all we've had any push for is (1) what the Tories already wanted; plus (2) the interpretation of the wording I've provided above.
My post is precisely because I've read the manifesto and tried to understand it in terms of "what is going to actually happen" in the light of coalition LD behaviour.
"we will introduce a Freedom Bill to restore the civil liberties that are so precious to the British character"
And, as always, grammar nazism has its place. In choosing "that" rather than "which", the writer has not meant:
i.e. the classical liberty of freedom of expression (deployed as speech, assembly, photography etc., all coming under the same principle); instead quite specifically aiming to:
This has further degenerated to:
And, if current LD coalition behaviour is a model for future LD behaviour, this will become:
If a man with a history of duplicity offers you something which appears too good to be true, you do not say, "Where do I sign?" Instead you ask yourself, "How is he trying to trick me this time?"
(For a model of past effectiveness, see the Number 10 e-petitions scheme: to reinforce the government's will where in agreement, and to be ignored otherwise.)
Well, I could give you mounds of evidence, but here's what stands out:
Clegg, the overt organiser of this circus, has sold out his Party to a power shak^Hring agreement, abandoning pretty much every core platform on which they established their vote. More insidiously, he's accepting arrangements which make it look like the LDs are pushing for their manifesto when in fact they're doing precisely the opposite. For example, his Party has steadfastly put voting reform to Proportional Representation at the top of the political agenda for decades, but now he is proposing the Alternative Voting method - a "compromise" system even less Proportional than FPTP which will inevitably be voted against in any referendum, ensuring the status quo.
The LDs have always been the "Party who cares"[tm], i.e. proposes more than just slight tweaks, and they've always been laughed at because, "They'd never really do that and can only say that because they'll never get into power." Well, now they do have a certain degree of power. And they're doing none of what they said. Instead, as just illustrated, their method will be to listen, propose a "compromise" which no-one wants at all, then wait until it's not imposed and nothing changes at all. The exceptions will be where laws were already going to be tweaked, in which case this site will be used as an excuse (digital economy, personal welfare).
tl;dr We are living in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. There is neither the framework, education, means nor (most importantly) interest to listen directly to the people. Even referendums are barely an exception as they're worded precisely by the government and (hi, EU!) sometimes just repeated until the population is worn down and the right answer is obtained.
at very long wavelengths — much longer than what we can sense with our eyes.
Thanks for that.
Commencing analysis...
Bush: stuck to his guns, dirty as they were.
Hill: stuck to his drawers, dirty as they were.
Einstein:
Results of his work: atomic bomb => Nagasaki, Hiroshima.
Regretted result of his work.
Python:
Result of their work: every fucking geek on the bastard planet reciting the same sketches for the thousandth time and finding it just as hilarious as the first. STOP IT. WE GET IT. YOU CAN RECITE SOMEONE ELSE'S COMEDY. WELL DONE. NOW CREATE SOMETHING NEW.
Do the group regret the result of their work, though afraid to admit it?
Hmm.
"Compulsory" and "you can opt out" are mutually fucking exclusive, jackass.
No matter how angry you get, your handwaving won't increase the soundness of your argument. It is compulsory to follow an opt out procedure if you don't want your organs to be harvested, therefore the organ donation system is compulsory. You must get involved with the system whether you want to or not.
By contrast, "compulsory" and "opt in" are likely to be mutually exclusive because you can do nothing and find yourself facing no obligations. The system adds no compulsion.
The NY donation system doesn't punish you for not being an organ donor.
The NY donation system punishes you if you do not have the ability and opportunity to learn the donation system and take the time to follow the appropriate bureaucratic procedure to opt out. It does this by harvesting organs from your dead body without your consent.
Similarly, you gave my sheep consent to graze on your lawn because you didn't sign the opt-out form on my desk and advertised in the appropriate basement.
You, Sir, ought to start a business as a spammer. According to part 419 of the Universal Spam Code, it's moral if you put a genuine opt-out link at the bottom, rite?
Fish don't like it when you anthropomorphise. Are "curiosity" and "pack behaviour" so distinguishable?
Anyway, drive by a road accident and ask the same question of humans.
Well played, Sir. But seriously, it works either side of the tank, even when I've obsessively washed my hands so as not to pollute the aquarium. Some fish seem to have excellent visual acuity, so maybe they do care whether something looks exactly like one of them or not... so, what must be modified in the static appearance / movement for their responses to change?
I can move my fingers close to my fish to convince my fish to make a turn. Or my cat. Or my human.
In other news, an interesting moving thing ahead of you might be worth following.
But I'd rather die young than live a long life as a bootlick, and I've no base urge to jack into the gene pool. So it looks like we can agree to disagree!
Given the organ donation system in NYC is (apparently now) not compulsory, and simply opt-out, yes, precisely.
You errant implications notwithstanding (moral universalism; law <=> moral majority), the donation system is compulsory: you must opt out unless you want your organs used. What is not compulsory is, quite specifically, for a rational adult informed of the relevant law (and all adults are informed of all laws relevant to them - this is why we don't need lawyers) to donate organs.
Otherwise, everything the government requires you to do from paying taxes to doing time is, "not compulsory, and you simply have to X [if you want the government to not force Y]."
being in the UK
So it's morally justifiable if most people don't have objections.
Excellent.
Tomorrow morning you will find yourself sans property. Since, as is true of almost every man, "most people" don't even care whether you live or die, why the hell should the law assume they do?
Particularly if it means I get to have a TV for my kitchen and a decent set of furniture for the new office.
FWIW, the only time I'd consider not being on the organ register is if opt-in became automatic. I put my health where my mouth is: for example, I've opted out from central computerised health service records. In emergencies this might mean a doctor not being aware of my medical history, but it's far more important that I do not support a system ripe for abuse.
British polls frequently suggest support for the death penalty. It's one of the best arguments against the direct will of the majority.
A western representative democracy's power is in its fettering of tyrants: undesirables can soon be replaced. Its purpose is not to give a majority the power to do whatever they want to a minority.
The piece has a valid point, if hurriedly written, but it's not really covering the topic of "Repealing unnecessary laws". It's not even answering the provided question, "Which offences do you think we should remove or change, and why?"
Rewrite it in terms of identifying laws which cover police misconduct, giving examples of abuse by police which would be better tackled under your proposals. Incorporate a summary of relevant reports from well-known organisations or other commissions. Compare with police complaint procedures in the EU. Discover which MPs support your ideas and mention any work they have done.
Finally, write concisely, repeatedly hitting the voter with powerful facts. It's much harder than formulating an annoyed rant but much more effective.
One case is about insuring against deliberately hampering a police investigation,
Not assisting the police is by no reasonable definition "deliberately hampering a police investigation". Deliberately hampering might include destroying evidence, or lying to the police, or resisting arrest. You cannot deliberately hamper by doing nothing.
Consider for a moment an alternative world in which it is illegal to not actively help the police.
and the other is about forcing false confessions. I simply don't see why allowing one necessarily implies we need to follow the other.
You're asserting that the state should be able to require you to actively cooperate in finding you guilty, using some argument which assumes that the state has a privilege to force "compliance" on the innocent. Do you not think that people in interview are encouraged to confess, even when their guilt is in doubt? Is the problem not that the man under suspicion is not saying what the police want him to say?
That's a separate issue. It's not actually a problem with "innocent until proven guilty".
If a man is innocent then why should he be forced to testify against himself? And if he doesn't testify against himself why should this make him automatically guilty of anything? He should surely be innocent of the crime for which he was initially arrested until he is proven guilty of that crime - not until he can be charged with new crimes simply because of procedural bureaucracy.
Lazy Daily Haters would, accurately or otherwise, regard themselves as much defenders of freedom and the middle class as GROLIES.
But yes, that comes under (3), the abolition of the red tape that is Human Rights. Note that the Act also formally absolutely abolishes the death penalty, which AIUI was technically legal in the UK for certain military offences before 1998. Other-pond-siders may wish to note that it was an application of the European Convention on Human Rights, the thirteenth protocol of which also forbids the death penalty - though not all states accept all protocols!
Cameron's a fucking brilliant PR man. He knows that the Internet is mostly paTrolled by lazy, middle-class Libertardian types with way too much time on their hands. The loudest voices on this site will not represent the population, but people obsessed with:
Non-single-issue laws which have a significant impact on the freedom or purse of the public, such as those related to the right to remain silent or surveillance or regulatory bodies or corporate taxation or military spending or public-private partnerships are far too complex to be properly analysed by the lazy group dominating the forum, let alone able to be tackled in terms of "keep or repeal". And Cameron knows this.
This is a compliance issue. In certain circumstances it is entirely appropriate for people to be required to comply with police. I suppose next you'll be complaining that people have to pull over to the side of the road when a policeman pulls them over.
Oh, that's awful. You might as well argue that not confessing to every unsolved murder under interrogation is "a compliance issue". There are very specific circumstances in which people may be reasonably required to comply with police. In particular, the police may detain you for a limited period when there is a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. There is your reasonable exception, not proof of any rule.
RIPA makes me guilty of the crime of not speaking in a particular way, regardless of whether I am guilty of anything else. We have recently lost our right to remain silent, but not speaking wasn't an offence: it was instead (insanely) judged acceptable to consider "not speaking" as evidence against you. But with RIPA the government goes further: now it is a crime to not speak.
Now some may argue that a man should also be compelled to provide fingerprint / DNA / semen samples, and that refusing to provide samples should be grounds for force to be used to collect and/or further prosecution and/or evidence of guilt. I'm not clear whether and when each of these should apply. But none of this involves convincing a man to say things which may cause him to lose his freedom on pain of loss of freedom.