Warning: This post was published more than 12 years ago.
I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!
But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:
- My views might have changed in the 12 years since I wrote this post.
- This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
- Factual information might be outdated.
- Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.
Many thanks for your understanding.
I have absolutely no doubt about the main duty of any prime minister: it is to do everything possible to protect the security of our nation and its citizens.
…there is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack.
I couldn’t disagree with Tony Blair more. If we start making this the ‘greatest’ civil liberty, then the logical conclusion is surely to live in a police state. And a PM should certainly not do everything possible to protect its citizens: He should do only what is necessary and prudent, balancing the possibility of danger to citizens against the restrictions of freedom which must be imposed in order to protect them.
I find it very worring that we have a PM who wants to take all possible steps to protect the country, and it’s not a policy I could ever support.