And what about tom watson? The thorn in the side of gov surveillance for years and copyfighter extraordinaire now strangely silent on this... oh yeah, he was made deputy labour leader. A choice quote from him in that guardian article -
“At a time when we face a real and ever-present terrorist threat, the security forces may require access to personal information none of us would normally hand over. That’s why it’s absolutely vital that proper safeguards are put in place to ensure this power is not abused, as it has been in the recent past.
“Most of us can accept that our privacy may occasionally be compromised in the interests of keeping us safe, but no one would consent to giving the police or the government the power to arbitrarily seize our phone records or emails to use as they see fit. It’s for judges, not ministers, to oversee these powers.”
Emphasis mine and utter bullshit. What safeguards, tom? This law is a rubber stamping exercise for judges and nothing more. No, I do NOT consent to my privacy being compromised for security services to try and consistently fail to stop any terrorist act, and certainly not so that organisations like the god damn gambling commission, food standards agency, charity commission, ambulance service etc. can dip in to my browsing history when they feel like it.
What about shami chakrabarti? Also gone silent... oh yeah, she was given a life peerage wasn't she. When it came down to it they betrayed their principles for a bit of privilege and power - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/snoopers-charter-investigatory-powers-bill-labour-abstain-shami-chakrabarti-jeremy-corbyn-diane-a7355301.html - when those same MPs were under police surveillance themselves.
This is great news don't get me wrong but isn't it all for nought seeing as we're soon to be out of the EU? Not that I expect our wonderful authoritarian overlord, teflon theresa, to accept this ruling anyway.