Well here is my context. The UK gov't, and other governments around the world have clearly demonstrated incompetence WRT their ability to tell dangerous individuals from harmless ones[1], to act appropriately in dealing with suspects, and to acknowledge mistakes when they happen. Those are the kinds of problems that need sorting out before even considering whether to give the gov't more and broader powers with which they will most certainly do more harm, and then fail to acknowledge their inevitable mistakes, and then fail to correct the mistakes when forced to acknowledge them.
>He is not advocating for an overbearing state as a social model in and of itself.
The UK gov't, and other governments around the world have clearly demonstrated incompetence WRT their ability to tell dangerous individuals from harmless ones
There's also the position that they (the government) are somehow uniquely positioned to be able to do this better than anyone else, and yet keep failing at it.
>He is not advocating for an overbearing state as a social model in and of itself.
What makes you so sure?
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/27/twitter-joke-tria...