Voice of freedom: Chris Snowdon
Saturday, June 5, 2010 
Chris Snowdon, author Velvet Glove Iron Fist and The Spirit Level Delusion:
Last week, Big Brother Watch revealed that local authorities have used the RIPA laws 8,500 times in the last two years, including to spy on their own employees to make sure they turn up on time and are parking correctly.
Only five per cent of these investigations ever resulted in a prosecution, let alone a conviction. That is an extraordinary statistic. Even with power to secretly film and follow people, they were unable to gather enough evidence to prosecute. We must presume, then, that the vast majority of the people being investigated were innocent.
The whole premise of the government’s approach was wrong. By and large, the public have been behaving and by and large, the authorities have been misbehaving.
Chris was speaking at the first of five Voices of Freedom debates, organised by The Free Society in London. Full speech on Chris's blog HERE.
Next debate: Big Government is Watching You: the surveillance society and individual freedom, Thursday 10 June.
Reader Comments (3)
Chris Snowdon also has the story on Professor Phillipe Even a French pulmanologist who has broken ranks and discusses the scientific fraud of SHS. Here is a taster.
"The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the World Health Organization. The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything."
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/06/free-at-last.html
If a person accepts the argument, "If you are doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear", then that person has to accept that a person has no right to 'do something wrong'. But, 'doing something wrong' does not necessarily have to be something criminal. For example, a man might say to his wife that his is just going to the pub for a pint wfen, in fact, his intention is to go out on the town with his mates; or, a woman might say that she is going shopping when, in fact, she is going to the hairdressers. These things happen. Thus, one might be doing 'nothing wrong (in a criminal sense)' but be doing something wrong in a personal sense.
But the arguement goes further. If one is doing 'nothing wrong', then there is justification for refusing to have cameras in one's own home. That is the logic.
There is a simplistic element to the justification for these cameras which does not hold water whe looked at in the light of real sitiuations.
The argument for the smoking ban is exactly a case in point.
Are spy cameras taking over from the quangos.
Are the quangos becoming surpurfluos to requirements when you have Joe Punter flagrante on cctv cameras.
With the bans now in place, there will be no need for smoke police, just flip the camera on the Lyons Head pub and hey presto a smoke or drink fine is in the post the next day.
Is this what Cameron meant when he promised to cull the quangos.