Gordon Brown has defended the use of CCTV, ID cards and the DNA database - saying they protect civil liberties.

In a speech to the IPPR think tank, the prime minister said they helped ensure people's right to live free from crime.

This is from the news story via the BBC regarding Brown's speech to the IPPR think tank. It seems as though the argument Brown wishes to deploy is that we're all safer if we're under greater governmental control and security service surveillance. In fact in a week or so's time Brown is going to unveil a policy that says we are all to be chained to our work desks or sofa's (depending on the time of day) to ensure that no-one has the opportunity to take anyone elses freedoms away from them via crime ever again!

All facetiousness aside, lets continue in to the article...

He also defended 42-day detention, saying the authorities could not afford a "head-in-the-sand" approach to it.

I think it's interesting to hear how much he regards his party's own advances against counter terrorism. Rules to stop people from withholding evidence via encrypted data and already civil liberty infringing 28 day rules on detention without charge are already deemed to be "head-in-the-sand" approaches are they?

"New technology is giving us modern means by which we can discharge these duties, but just as we need to employ these modern means to protect people from new threats, we must at the same time do more to guarantee our liberties," he said.

Doesn't he just sound like your grandfather when given an iPod? "new technology", give me strength. How does Gordon Brown even think he can pass of this type of language as progressive in the fight against terrorism. it's also, incidently, a load of fucking bollocks inexpertly churned out by his speech-writer.

"Facing these modern challenges, it is our duty to write a new chapter in our country's story - one in which we both protect and promote our security and our liberty, two equally proud traditions."

Which we shall do by not moving an inch on drugs legislation and reversing any liberal moves on that front, by pricing alcohol out of the market while criminalising more of its consumers, by legislating and legislating against smoking far beyond the realms of equality of liberty, by criminalising our kids to make sure they stay indoors like good boys and girls, and of course putting the fear in to any brown or black person alive that if they put a step wrong we'll deport or incarcerate them depending on their immigrant status.

Oh man, I've just got such a glorious view of our great and glorious liberal land...as it sails a-fucking-way down the river and over the precipice of a waterfall.

During his speech Mr Brown also announced that he would ask the Information Commissioner to produce a report each year on surveillance in the UK, which would then be debated by MPs.

Mr Brown, it seems, has already become insane as he clearly believes parliament a) actually knows what the hell it's talking about half the time, b) actually votes (if it gets a vote) on anything other than party colours and c) that people believe parliament is a just and noble entity. Well, Gordon, it's not by a long margin on any issue mentioned above. Who really gives a shit if parliament use some of the precious time that could be spent debating votes at 16 or changing daylight savings time, on debating without consequence just how much we're all being spied on? (more on this in another article later)

"This is neither preventative detention or internment, this is to deal with a severe terrorist incident but in doing so, at all times, trying to protect the civil liberties of the individual."

What a fucking liar. The ONLY way that the "pro"-42 days lobby could argue for their illiberal shit bag of a policy was to say "what if a terrorist is let go after 28 days?". Can you please explain to me how, therefore, 42 day detention without charge isn't a preventative measure to stop a terrorist from going out and blowing something up before they actually find some rope to hang him with? It is clear that the David Davis resignation has completely rattled the Labour party because otherwise they wouldn't be doing an flip flopping, u-turning, two-faced, simply bloody duplicitous statement like this trying to cache in on a "protecting your liberties" argument. Newsflash: They're not protecting shit.

He said terrorists wanted to destroy British "freedoms" and that must not be allowed.

The joke is of course on Mr Brown, as the terrorist are winning in destroying our freedoms without even letting off any more bombs. Checkmate eh?

"But to say that we should ignore the new demands of security, to assume that the laws and practises which have applied in the past are sufficient always to face the future, to be unwilling to face up to difficult choices and ultimately to neglect the fundamental duty to protect our own security, that would be the politics of complacency,"

And so I return to my original point again. If we're so keen to legislate for the future then why not lock us all up now? That is a surefire way of stopping any crime at all from ever occurring again. Chip us, tag us and film us in everything we do and require us to ask the permission of an MP (to be debated in parliament) to even go to the toilet. After all the priority is making these "difficult" (read: incorrect and bullshit) choices, not on actually quantifying the specific need for the absolute garbage you're foisting on us all.