uk national service bill 2014

[RKM]

hope this doesn't pass. am far too sensitive to be in the army

[nowaysj]

Being covered in the brain matter of little girls while you vanquish your financial enemies will do a lot to deaden you sensitivity.

Look on the bright side.

[test_recordings]

Basic Guaranteed Income > conscription imo

[bennyfroobs]

This is fucking rartid man. So I'm supposed to take a year out of a job that I'm currently doing well in to go and do some whack shit for minimum wage and then just waltz back into work at the end of it, expecting nothing to have changed? Farcical.

Absolutely cannot see this getting passed though, and if it ever does, hopefully it's not before June 2016. Fortunately looks like it's being pushed by a bit of a joke of an MP.

tbf i didnt read the full thing before being outraged about conscription, but now that i understand the full bill i think its equally fucking retarded. gaz sums it up perfectly rly ^^^^^^^^^^^

it wont get passed tho, apparently theres like no support for it whatsoever

[m8son666]

why do we need to sign the damn petition then, not that i have

[garethom]

Just because you don't think something will happen, it doesn't mean you can't do something to further decrease the chance that it happens...

cmon man

[m8son666]

i don't really care anyway i think it would be nice if the government made me do something so i don't have to worry about choosing.

Also what happens if this type of petition reaches it's target? Does the law magically go away?

[Pedro Sánchez]

Also what happens if this type of petition reaches it's target? Does the law magically go away?

It does if enough people are made aware and voice their opinions to their local representative who NEEDS their vote to keep his/her position, then vote against the bill before it gets wings. That's what campaigns are for.


Or the media get involved and it becomes outrage topic of the week.

[m8son666]

Yeah i know, i understand that, but when on these petition websites it has a target i am wondering if anything actually happens when you reach the target.

[Pedro Sánchez]

Well it shows the support of the campaign which is usually brought to the attention of those that can do something about it.

[garethom]

i don't really care anyway i think it would be nice if the government made me do something so i don't have to worry about choosing.

lol, you blatantly would care

[garethom]

fuck it, emailed the bast. see if I get a response, took some fucking time writing that out.

[m8son666]

lol paste it here please

[OGLemon]

lol paste it here please

[m8son666]

Garethom: Hi mister politician, please don't make me go to war i get sunburnt in hot countries and don't like sand

Politician: god damn it the pleb filter must be broken *delete*

[nowaysj]

Y'all should head off and kill some The Ukrainians.

[garethom]

Garethom: Hi mister politician, please don't make me go to war i get sunburnt in hot countries and don't like sand

Politician: god damn it the pleb filter must be broken *delete*

yeah, alright mate, that's as simple as it was...

[nousd]

A wonderful idea imho
All youse young poms,
sitting round in your bedrooms playing computer games
and producing shitty trap without any life experience,
getting off yours to wipe wrinkly bums
and heading out to blow up the enemies of The Great Satan.
They'll make ladies of you yet.

Just don't tell our current Prime Meathead.

[nowaysj]

Was going to drop this into the lazy protest thread, but can't find it. I think this story is relevant to the formation of your opinion of the nationalization of your labor pool (amongst other issues):

Don't read this here, though, go to the link. The original Snowden leaked documents are embedded at zerohedge.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-2 ... eive-and-d

The Conspiracy Theory Is True: Agents Infiltrate Websites Intending To "Manipulate, Deceive, And Destroy Reputations"

In the annals of internet conspiracy theories, none is more pervasive than the one speculating paid government plants infiltrate websites, social network sites, and comment sections with an intent to sow discord, troll, and generally manipulate, deceive and destroy reputations. Guess what: it was all true.

And this time we have a pretty slideshow of formerly confidential data prepared by the UK NSA equivalent, the GCHQ, to confirm it, and Edward Snowden to thank for disclosing it. The messenger in this case is Glenn Greenwald, who has released the data in an article in his new website, firstlook.org, which he summarizes as follows: "by publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself." Call it Stasi for "Generation Internet."

Greenwald's latest revelation focuses on GCHQ’s previously secret unit, the JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group).

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:

Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.

The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:

Greenwald's punchline is disturbing, and is sure to make paradnoid conspiracy theorists crawl even deeper into their holes for one simple reason: all of their worst fears were true all along.

No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption.



The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

At this point Greenwald takes a detour into a well-known topic: Cass Sunstein. Who is Cass Sunstein? Recall: "Obama Picks Cass Sunstein (America’s Goebbels?) To Serve On NSA Oversight Panel."

Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.



Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

But while until now there was speculation that Sunstein's policies had been implemented, there was no proof. That is no longer the case:

... these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

What is perhaps most disturbing is the level of detail these modern day Stasi agents engage in, paradoxically proposing social subversion without realizing they themselves would be susceptible to just that. And all it would take is one whistleblower with a conscience:

Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack”, while dissecting how human being can be manipulated using “leaders”, “trust, “obedience” and “compliance”:

The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:

Greenwald's conclusion is spot on:

These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.



Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

So the next time you run into someone in a chat room or a message board who sounds just a little too much like a paid government subversive... it may not be just the paranoia speaking. For the full details "why not", read the formerly confidential slideshow below.

[garethom]

When I get a bit of time, I'll copy the correspondence we had. My local mp basically parred him and told me he was a waste of time as well