1. Smith targets internet extremism. What happens when the Internet surveillance bunch are criticised for being cretanistic morons for their obsession with someone who seeks to expose their own abuse? Lt Harry Bird is a right wing whacko without any cognitive ability at all. He is an ignorant bigot full of rage driven hatred. He cannot put two words together before he lapses back onto his vicious attack using verbal abuse and incitement to carry out a crime on his behalf.
He seeks to destroy my Internet activity so that he can carry on his indefinite torture activity with the use of the surveillance technology without being exposed for what he is on the Internet as I am doing. He abuses everything he can taking all his verbal attacks to an extreme that is beyond rational and reasonable comprehension. He continuously prods others to find their limits hoping to smoke out other ignorant bigots like himself in order to emotionally incite them to vigilante mob behaviour.
Give people like these any law that they can bend to fit their manipulated and/or manufactured "facts," and they will abuse it to the hilt. What protections will be offered against those who seek to silence legitimate critical comment and analysis? What will be the alternative to expose those who abuse such a law if they are capable of eliminating the Internet from use as a research tool and mode of expression to stop such abuse? Judging by my experience for almost a decade of such abuse this is the next step for abuse to silence those who have something legitimate to say when it is not liked. Censorship looms large behind the Home Secretary's declaration.
Thu Jan 17 18:55:06 GMT 2008: "That's their job," said a male sounding like Lt Harry Bird (but could be another) just now. It was in reference to the fact that I have pointed out that they have been trying to stop my use of the Internet for years. This was spoken like a good Brown Shirt who also says "I'm just following orders" when pressed in this situation about what he is doing.
Criminal activity can never be considered legitimate employment. Following orders as a defense for criminal conduct went out with the Nuremberg trials. All of this is lost on everyone involved since they are allowing or are allowed to continue with extreme destructive behaviour for years. They think that they can hide behind surveillance technology and get away with whatever they want. This is the real problem of the future. Whatever the Home Secretary might say and Parliament might intend by passing such a law will get perverted by the time it reaches the point of implementation.
Where is the control for proper standards at the ground level, and where is the method for addressing a legitimate grievance about abuse? Silencing free expression for reporting problems enables image management to claim that the problems are solved when they are, in fact, flourishing.
Thu Jan 17 19:13:33 GMT 2008: "I'm going to kill him," said Lt Harry Bird proving my point once again as he always does.
BBC News Thursday, 17 January 2008, 14:02 GMT
Smith targets internet extremism
 Ministers want to stop people being targeted online |
The home secretary has outlined plans to target websites promoting extremism, as part of efforts to stop people being drawn towards radical groups.
Jacqui Smith said she wanted to use technology to stop "vulnerable people" being "groomed for violent extremism".
"Because something is difficult, that is no reason not to have a go at it," she added. "The internet can't be a no-go area for government."
Ms Smith is to discuss the plans with members of the communications industry.
Later she will meet internet service providers and members of the Muslim community to discuss measures to block websites which promote terrorism.
The home secretary said it would be possible to "learn lessons" about removing offensive material which was placed online.