Most of us in the free west instinctively oppose any measures taken by government to interfere unnecessarily in our lives. Over regulation and micro management smack of Big Brother in George Orwell’s chilling novel “1984” and are abhorrent to free thinkers.

The key word in the preceding paragraph is “unnecessarily” and the question has to be asked is when is government interference necessary and therefore acceptable?

As I write these notes there is considerable controversy over the British government’s decision to force through legislation to increase surveillance of communications meaning, among other things, that our private emails will be private no longer – though I wonder, with all the technology at the government’s disposal, if they ever were private in the first place.

Many critics have called the legislation a “Snoopers’ Charter” and have referred to the measures as draconian and an example of unnecessary (that word again) “State Control”.

I sympathise with that viewpoint and the last thing I want is for my life to be controlled by the State. However, I also want to stay safe and I want my loved ones, my friends and fellow citizens to stay safe too. On balance, if the government remains fully accountable (a prerequisite) to the electorate and its measures succeed in preventing lives being lost to terrorist acts won’t a loss of privacy be a reasonable – and necessary – price to pay?