(there should make it show up)

Let’s look at Northern Ireland. It has also been explained that the Tories did not introduce internment, that was the devolved government of NI. Internment continued under direct rule from March 1972 until 1975 (under both Tory and Labour governments. So Neil, you are quite wrong there. As for other forms of imprisonment without trial or charge, let’s look at the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1974. Introduced by a Labour Home Secretary (and described by him at the time as ‘draconian’), it allowed detention without charge for 48 hours (note that the existing criminal law did not allow any form of detention without charge), extensible up to seven days on the Home Secretary’s say-so. Obviously this has long been superseded by even more draconian measures, but the facts are clear. The only UK governments since WW2 to introduce any form of detention without charge have been Labour governments.

As for gay rights and the age of consent, here’s some facts – from 1967 the age of consent was 21. This was reduced (under a Tory government, though it was not a government bill) to 18 in 1994, and in 2000 to the present 16 years (in this case using the Parliament Act to force the legislation through.

With regard to the rather silly questions about “Would you rather be…?” which ignore all the other societal factors affecting what it is like to live in a particular era and reduce it all to a matter of personalities, taking everything that defined what it was like to live then and laying it at the door of a single person. Still let’s have a quick look at the straw army, though it has nothing whatsoever to do with civil liberties.

Would you rather be gay under Thatcher or Blair?

How about neither of them? This isn’t after all a real choice that can be made

Would you rather be a single parent under Thatcher or Blair?

Doesn’t that rather depend on your individual circumstances? For example, I suspect the friend of mine who attended university in the mid-80s as a single parent and mature student would far prefer the former, as she didn’t leave unversity saddled with huge debts.

Would you rather be working poor under Thatcher or Blair with a minimum wage/ guaranteed holidays, tax credits, better funded education and sure start for your children etc?

Interesting biases built into the question there, don’t you think? It’s true that there has been a marginal economic improvement for some groups of poor people. Not got a whole lot to do with civil liberties though.

Would you rather be a poor pensioner under Thatcher or Blair with winter fuel payments, shorter waiting lists for NHS, free local bus travel, free tv licences, etc?

Or would you rather be a poor pensioner with much lower actual fuel charges? And still with free bus travel (you really need to do a little more research before making these sort of ill-founded statements you know). A much cheaper TV licence, and a state pension worth much more in real terms. As for the shorter wating lists, this is to a great extent a statistical fiddle, but I can’t be bothered looking up the figures right now. Maybe you should do some actual research for a change.

Is this the sum of your argument? You disapprove of Thatcher’s economic policies, therefore anything that Blair does must be supported?

Anyway, to summarize. I said Neil does not understand what is meant by civil liberties, and that he is a hopeless case. Neil posts a series of comments clearly showing the he does not understand what is meant by civil liberties, and that he seems incapable of learning. QED, I think.

BTW the screenshot. I thought it was funny, it was meant to be a joke – and apposite given the content of the page full of comments that it appeared at the foot of. I gave any readers credit for being able to understand how such a thing might have occurred, I didn’t think I would have to make it explicit.

As for:
Pete, you are a bare faced liar.

Well, right in one point. I am indeed clean shaven.

and:
You are the one who is ignorant of history.

The facts suggest otherwise.

No one asked the miners to play power politics. Their industry was dead, and they decided to try to bring down the (elected) government in order to safeguard their pointless jobs.

And, substantially, how is it different to Blair using the army to undermine the firefighters’ strike?

… and was responsible for the biggest post-war civil disturbances in Britain with her policy of the poll tax…

Which was an entirely fair tax, i.e. if you use facilties, then you should pay for them. A family of four uses more faclities than one person, so they should pay more. Surely that is the very essence of “fair” taxation?

… not to mention the inner city riots in every major city in the early Eighties caused by her disastrous monetarist policies.

What, in the name of all that is un-fucking-holy, has that to do with civil liberties? What about the biggest demonstrations ever, under this government, against the Hunting Ban and the Iraq War? What planet are you on, you fucking ape (clue: the answer’s in the question)?

Lets talk about real civil liberties. Ask yourself the following and answer honestly;

Would you rather be gay under Thatcher or Blair?”

What is your obsession with gays? Is there something that we should know? Would you rather be an unruly teenager under Blair or Thatcher?

Would you rather be a single parent under Thatcher or Blair?

Again, what? Are you suggesting that, because everyone else contributes towards the upkeep of those who cannot support themselves, that this is some kind of civil liberty? Socialist redistribution, yes; compassionate help, yes; civil liberty, no.

Would you rather be working poor under Thatcher or Blair with a minimum wage/ guaranteed holidays, tax credits, better funded education and sure start for your children etc?

As above. And, of course, if the government had more progressive tax policies – such as raising the Personal Allowance in line with wage inflation – there wouldn’t be so many working poor in the first place.

Has it escaped your notice, you buffoon, the the gap between rich and poor has widened, whilst social mobility has decreased, under this government? Or do you simply gloss over those reports because they don’t suit your worldview.

Would you rather be a poor pensioner under Thatcher or Blair with winter fuel payments, shorter waiting lists for NHS, free local bus travel, free tv licences, etc?

As above. Sorry, was that a 50p a week rise in pensions that they got last time? And, you are assuming that all pensioners are state pensioners. Would I rather be a private pensioner under Thatcher or Blair? Thatcher, obviously; her government didn’t completely screw the pensions industry, and therefore my pension.

This is not just disagreeing with policy, these are fundamental civil rights differences, don’t pretend otherwise.

No, they aren’t.

We are better off than we have ever been in terms of disposable income…

Who’s “we”, Neil? Does the fact that the government takes away more of our earned income than ever before really give us more disposable income?

… poverty has been reduced…

No, it hasn’t. Not really. It’s all illusion.

… and this government have introduced devolved power and proportional representation…

How is that a civil liberties argument? This government has added two more tiers of expensive bureaucracy in Labour heartlands, that is all. It has ensured that its MPs can continue to vote on English matters, whilst keeping its fringe heartlands happy by giving them the illusion of power.

… and freedom of information…

Well, up to a point; as long as the information asked for under FoI requests are not “commercially sensitive” or deemed unsuitable for release by a government minister or functionary acting in their name.

… human rights…

No, this government has not given us human rights: the difference between human rights (which we have always had) and the Human Rights Act are worlds apart.

… party funding transparency etc. etc.

Yup, along with cash for policy change, such as Ecclestone, Mittal, the Hinduja brothers, and too many more to mention (but you may want to look here for more).

You are a knave and fool.

DK

Neil, I strongly suggest reading that Wiki link. The only item on your list which can actually be considered a civil liberties issue is that of gay rights.

Civil liberties are essentially about protections from government power. I think the minimum wage, for example, is a good thing. But it has nothing to do with civil libetrty.