Robertos and Bobblebob.

I tend to agree with Robertos about the need for some powers and it is not just for terrorism which has been much of the emphasis of this tread, but also for crime, which is tending to move more and more online for communications.

I do though have all the reservations expressed about securing all this gathered data from criminals and making sure that only the correct authorities use it under the correct procedures. Local councils misused the powers in the last bill I gather for all sorts of reasons, such as dog fouling and incorrect use of dustbins.

+1, and if European countries had not buried their heads in the sand and said someone else's problem 4 years ago, then the refugee camps might be a bit more inhabitable and the refgees not quite so desperate to move on.

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

Internet firms to be banned from offering unbreakable encryption under new laws

Oh no they're not

There's now a petition opposing the introduction of this bill

In reference to petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111448:

Theresa May is about to announce a new government surveillance bill. Another one. This time it will require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to retain one year's worth of your internet history. We're still not sure what the government actually aims to achieve by doing this but it's unnecessary.

Which just shows how stupid the petition system is. Or in this case, the people who originated this one and those that sign it.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

It's unreasonable to let the countries nearest the crisis bear the entire refugee burden. Under that scenario the UK would never receive any refugees, unless civil war broke out in France or Belgium which is somewhat unlikely.

And if the Dublin convention is ignored you get "asylum shopping" for the country with the best economic circumstances, not to mention the fact that a notable proportion of asylum seekers are frauds.

Geography does matter, the onus is not on the UK to provide an open door for the world's refugees, it may or may not choose to accept people - as it sees fit.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

Internet firms to be banned from offering unbreakable encryption under new laws

Oh no they're not

Complain to the Torygraph, not me ...

OK so the wording is not the best, but in spirit the petition is worthy.

In reply to a post by godsell4:

OK so the wording is not the best, but in spirit the petition is worthy.

Unfortunately it seems to be misunderstanding parliament petitions. All it does is if it gets enough signatures then parliament have to consider whether it should be discussed. However, it already has been discussed - and passed. Therefore the petition is actually just requesting something to happen that has already happened - it is not a process for lobbying to get a decision changed it is a process to ask for a decision to be tabled.

In reply to a post by tommy45:

It's actually watching TV as it is broadcast (live) that requires a TV licence...

Or any equipment which records TV (live), for the purpose of viewing later.