Police run the country ... OFFICIAL!
Discussion
so funny! (not). We've been letting in terrorists for so long now, and breeding our own.. finally the penny has dropped, and the knee jerk reaction that follows is waaayyyyy too late and will only hurt the innocent. Well done. Bit like the "no physical punishment" for kids. Kids then grow up to be thugs, like todays hood-rats. We were too liberal in the past, and now we're going the other way, but all too late. Sad beyond belief.
hertsbiker said:
Kids then grow up to be thugs, like todays hood-rats. We were too liberal in the past, and now we're going the other way, but all too late. Sad beyond belief.
A good point i think. I'm personally in favour of the Terror Laws (please, no slating of me for saying that). However, i think if we're going to bring in such strong and controversial laws relating to terrorism, we have to seriously get our 'home front' in order first. Our society is being torn apart by 'Hoodie Culture' and shows no sign of getting better. Lets tackle these idiots and their parents, then when we have a better society here, one which law-abding people can take pride in, we can try to tackle these other problems, this time with support of the voter....
Don said:
Those of us who arn't 'Company Directors' ...
You didn't deserve a personal flaming for your comments about law and order but you do deserve a personal flaming for that remark.
It was ill considered and impolite. I have spent my life gaining the skills and opportunities necessary to embark on a career as a Company Director. I have sacrificed and worked damn hard to get the chance and I have risked everything, as an entrpreneur, to make a go of running a business.
And you feel its OK to use the term "Company Director" as if it was an insult.
I hope you won't mind overly if I sum up my reaction to your comment in just two words:
"Up yours"
I'm with you Don..in the same boat here!
Hollywood Wheels said:
However, i think if we're going to bring in such strong and controversial laws relating to terrorism, we have to seriously get our 'home front' in order first. Our society is being torn apart by 'Hoodie Culture' and shows no sign of getting better. Lets tackle these idiots and their parents, then when we have a better society here, one which law-abding people can take pride in, we can try to tackle these other problems, this time with support of the voter....
Now THAT I can agree with wholeheartedly...I would suspect a lot more people are a lot more bothered by violent and anti-social neighbours and thugs in the town centre than they are by this nebulous concept "terrorism" that we seem to be encouraging anyway by our country's actions.
To put it into perspective - around HALF of the people I know have been affected (threatened / intimidated / attacked / generally lives made notably less pleasant) by such scum. And nearly every day we see a new post on PH about such behaviour.
But dealing with it isn't soundbite-friendly and will require lots of £££. So it's not likely to happen.
Havoc, i agree completely. This Hoodie gangland of a country is going to the wolves, and believe me it's only going to get worse. What's the response - ASBO's. Utter rubbish. I try at work, i really do, but it's like fighting a totally useless and losing battle.havoc said:
I think a lot of it comes down to how much trust you have in "the system".
Absolutely. But a lot of people (on here and elsewhere) seem to have a lot of trouble thinking outside the box. They also misinterpret 'belief' and 'perception' and 'trust' as 'fact'.
I don't like this Government, but it's to do with them not being Left wing. Blair is not Left Wing and not a Socialist. Certain individuals (I suspect they are young 'uns with limited experience) claim he is, then go on to complain how he is acting in a Centralist or Right Wing manner. Which is it then?
havoc said:
EXISTING anti-terror laws led to the arrest and detention of an OLD WHITE MIDDLE-CLASS MAN just for protesting at the Labour Party conference.
Surely it can't be just me that saw what happened? The over zealous 'bouncers' acted in the way they always do. Knowing the aggro they used to get in clubs, it never surprised me that bouncers were big and thick. Calling them security guards doesn't change that. Trouble is, it doesn't lead to constructive, equitable and tolerant behaviour on their part. The existing anti-terror laws didn't lead to his arrest, the low IQ of the 'staff' did.
My concern is how many of you are so certain of whats right and wrong. I seem to be able to see the argument from both sides, and I'm not sure for certain what's best. What is it that makes 3 months wrong? Is 2 months wrong, or is that okay. What about 1 month, or 5 weeks, or 3 weeks, etc. People can be held for a period of time as the law stands at present. I remember when these laws were changed, but I dont remember any massive outcry then. Probably because the time limit was shorter.
I remember civil liberties seriously affected under Thatcher. I remember some individuals outcry against the 'unjust' Falklands war. I remember the charge of being misled over the Belgrano. I remember the Government attacking the one group who could stand up to them and changing the laws to suit. I remember the 6 and the 4, and how no-one stood up and defended them whan they were set up by some police of the day and the Government.
So lets stop this pretence of how this Government is oh so bad, but the previous one was oh so good. These infrigements have been going on for years; as activists we've been begging for your assistance, yet now everyone seems to be concerned.
We don't fight injustice by pretending that it's only done by those we don't like.
Habeas corpus (ad subjiciendum) is Latin for "you may have the body" (subject to examination). It is a writ which requires a person detained by the authorities be brought before a court of law so that the legality of the detention may be examined. The name is taken from the opening words of the writ in medieval times.
If the charge is considered to be valid, the person must submit to trial but if not, the person goes free.
The Habeas Corpus Act passed by Parliament in 1679 guaranteed this right in law, although its origins go back much further, probably to Anglo-Saxon times.
It no longer plays a role in regard to detention by the police as it has been superseded by the much more detailed and workable provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which lays (laid) down precise rules about the length of pre-charge detention.
But there have been occasions when the British Parliament has suspended it, usually in times of social unrest.
William Pitt, startled by the success of the French revolution, did so after France declared war on Britain in 1793, to arrest parliamentary reformers. This was repeated by Lord Liverpool's government against the same movement in 1817.
War was a particularly fraught time for individual liberty. The Defence of the Realm Act 1914 meant the Home Secretary could intern residents and it was used against people of German descent, and Irish suspected of involvement in the Easter Uprising.
These powers were reinstated in World War II to detain those of German background, including Jewish refugees, as well as those with known fascist sympathies, such as Oswald Mosley. At the same time, the US authorities interned more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans.
But the most recent example happened in 1971, when the British Government introduced the internment of hundreds of republican suspects in an attempt to shut down the IRA. The tactic was abandoned four years later and is thought to have increased support for the IRA.
Tony BLiar is the first peacetime Prime Minister to curtail the right to habeas corpus.
And note some of those other "detentions" listed above - Jewish refugees (1939/40) and parliamentary reformers (1793 and 1817). Spot any similarities with today?
Streaky
If the charge is considered to be valid, the person must submit to trial but if not, the person goes free.
The Habeas Corpus Act passed by Parliament in 1679 guaranteed this right in law, although its origins go back much further, probably to Anglo-Saxon times.
It no longer plays a role in regard to detention by the police as it has been superseded by the much more detailed and workable provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which lays (laid) down precise rules about the length of pre-charge detention.
But there have been occasions when the British Parliament has suspended it, usually in times of social unrest.
William Pitt, startled by the success of the French revolution, did so after France declared war on Britain in 1793, to arrest parliamentary reformers. This was repeated by Lord Liverpool's government against the same movement in 1817.
War was a particularly fraught time for individual liberty. The Defence of the Realm Act 1914 meant the Home Secretary could intern residents and it was used against people of German descent, and Irish suspected of involvement in the Easter Uprising.
These powers were reinstated in World War II to detain those of German background, including Jewish refugees, as well as those with known fascist sympathies, such as Oswald Mosley. At the same time, the US authorities interned more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans.
But the most recent example happened in 1971, when the British Government introduced the internment of hundreds of republican suspects in an attempt to shut down the IRA. The tactic was abandoned four years later and is thought to have increased support for the IRA.
Tony BLiar is the first peacetime Prime Minister to curtail the right to habeas corpus.
And note some of those other "detentions" listed above - Jewish refugees (1939/40) and parliamentary reformers (1793 and 1817). Spot any similarities with today?
Streaky
Big Fat F'er said:Actually the BiB on duty outside appears to have acted beyond his instructions (at least if you believe the "apology" offered by his senior officers). He "detained" the man because his conference pass had been removed - not by the bouncers (or as they were described at the time, local councillors), but by a Nu Labia official.
Surely it can't be just me that saw what happened? The over zealous 'bouncers' acted in the way they always do. ... The existing anti-terror laws didn't lead to his arrest, the low IQ of the 'staff' did.
Big Fat F'er said:Or six months, or one year, or life? The line was well drawn beforehand, under PACE (IIRC - 24 hours, extensible to 36 by a senior officer then to a maximum of 96 hours by a magistrate ... all assuming no charge has been brought). Pushing it further and further out with no judicial authorisation is a potentially unstoppable force.
What is it that makes 3 months wrong? Is 2 months wrong, or is that okay. What about 1 month, or 5 weeks, or 3 weeks, etc.
Big Fat F'er said:I don't recall many lauding the previous administration (which, BTW, was Major not Thatcher). But in regard to your last comment, I can do no better than to quote Mark Twain:
So lets stop this pretence of how this Government is oh so bad, but the previous one was oh so good. These infrigements have been going on for years; as activists we've been begging for your assistance, yet now everyone seems to be concerned.
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
Streaky
.... it is a bit Stalinist ; I'm reading Sebag-Montefiorie (sic ?)'s book on Stalin.
It's not the slaughter it's the mixture of delusions, scams, conning and a comment of Stalin that the media is everything (paraphrase). Made me think of Bliar.
Real reason is ; he wants to do this anyway, wants someone to blame.
Stalin's power was seated in a terrorism law that allowed more or less indiscriminate prosecution of people on the grounds of terror (as, to some extent, was Hitler with the Enabling Law).
The terror was non-existent of course, and used as an excuse for and/or a destraction from the regime's failings.
So obviously no comparison there.
Stalin and his cronies knew they were killing innocent people, but seemed to think a few innocent victims were worthwhile as part of the global purge.
So obviously no comparison there.
Of course, these rules regarding criminality don't apply to everyone.
Byers (the scumbag) got off because of the incredibly difficult to hit rules for a few people ; the malfeasance laws.
This (in BiB terminology) would mean that if a burglar killed someone in the course of burgling a house he couldn't be done for it because it wasn't the primary aim of his action.
Or he couldn't be done for it unless you could prove he did it maliciously.
It's pathetic.
It's not the slaughter it's the mixture of delusions, scams, conning and a comment of Stalin that the media is everything (paraphrase). Made me think of Bliar.
Real reason is ; he wants to do this anyway, wants someone to blame.
Stalin's power was seated in a terrorism law that allowed more or less indiscriminate prosecution of people on the grounds of terror (as, to some extent, was Hitler with the Enabling Law).
The terror was non-existent of course, and used as an excuse for and/or a destraction from the regime's failings.
So obviously no comparison there.
Stalin and his cronies knew they were killing innocent people, but seemed to think a few innocent victims were worthwhile as part of the global purge.
So obviously no comparison there.
Of course, these rules regarding criminality don't apply to everyone.
Byers (the scumbag) got off because of the incredibly difficult to hit rules for a few people ; the malfeasance laws.
This (in BiB terminology) would mean that if a burglar killed someone in the course of burgling a house he couldn't be done for it because it wasn't the primary aim of his action.
Or he couldn't be done for it unless you could prove he did it maliciously.
It's pathetic.
Hollywood Wheels said:
Kids then grow up to be thugs, like todays hood-rats. We were too liberal in the past, and now we're going the other way, but all too late. Sad beyond belief.
This is actually what bothers the rest of us, including (obviously) me.
Freak stuff I can live with the possibility of, it's very remote.
I don't have a problem with strong terrorist laws, but there is an extensive recent history of abuse and selective use of laws which ere bought in for specific things.
Most obvious of which is AFAICS whenever the Police Service wants some good PR it arrests a few Moslems, claims they are terrorists, announced with full PR and Media coverage, and quietly releases them a bit later on. This is *NOT* a criticism of the BiB, but the idiots who run them !
The Labour thugs do the same thing ; whenever they want something or want to distract from something then there's crap about having foiled massive terrorist attacks.
The laughable "Ricin on door handles" prosecution is a classic example. Utter drivel.
*Providing* there is genuine responsibility taken by the Police I have no problem with this ; but this will not be the case, I suspect.
What recourse does the old man have ? Nothing.
If there is no recourse, it will be abused, sure as night follows day.
streaky said:
Big Fat F'er said:
What is it that makes 3 months wrong? Is 2 months wrong, or is that okay. What about 1 month, or 5 weeks, or 3 weeks, etc.
Or six months, or one year, or life? The line was well drawn beforehand, under PACE (IIRC - 24 hours, extensible to 36 by a senior officer then to a maximum of 96 hours by a magistrate ... all assuming no charge has been brought). Pushing it further and further out with no judicial authorisation is a potentially unstoppable force.
So I repeat, what is it that makes you all so certain that three months is wrong. Why is 96 hours without charge okay. I'm not defending any figure, I just don't get this 96 hours good, 3 months bad. Everyone seems to go on about the limitations of PACE, and how 'stupid' the Old Bill are (senior moments) but then say 96 hours is fine, because it's defined by PACE and controlled by the Old Bill! Where were you all when we were questioning the 96 hours introduction.
Big Fat F'er said:
So lets stop this pretence of how this Government is oh so bad, but the previous one was oh so good. These infrigements have been going on for years; as activists we've been begging for your assistance, yet now everyone seems to be concerned.
streaky said:
I don't recall many lauding the previous administration (which, BTW, was Major not Thatcher).
Many people have supported the previous administrations (I gave Thatcher's as example) by doing nothing. Then they come on here and talk about Bliar, without mentioning the constant erosion of civil liberties by others.
streaky said:
But in regard to your last comment, I can do no better than to quote Mark Twain:
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
I couldn't agree more. There's a hell of a lot of folk want to moan, but not actually do anything to change it. You only have to look at the ridiculous turn out rate for voting. It's well within living memory (of some) that Women couldn't vote simply because they were women. It's not that long ago. Having had the few fight for the many, and won equality, lots of women don't even bother to get out there and vote. Well done ladies.
I can't tell you the apathy experienced over many years of fighting for what we believed were just causes...and I include apathy on those who opposed our stance. Based on experience, there will be a fraction of 1% of PH'ers out there today on their feet, doing something. Anything. I don't mean talking about it, I mean supporting or forming or joining an action group. On another post I asked to be called when the motorists stand up and actually DO something about the speed cameras...I'll be a long time waiting.
The point about PACE is that after 36 hours a judicial review by a magistrate is required. The "Old Bill" do not control the process beyond that time.
The "how long is too long" question is ancient, and irresolvable. It was parodied in Yes Prime Minister, with Sir Humphrey's questioning as to when Hacker would press the (nuclear) button if the Soviets invaded Germany ... ending, "When they're marching up Whitehall, THEN would you press the button?" (or similar).
Whatever, there is a world of difference between 36 hours detention before being "examined" by a magistrate and 2,160 hours!
Streaky
The "how long is too long" question is ancient, and irresolvable. It was parodied in Yes Prime Minister, with Sir Humphrey's questioning as to when Hacker would press the (nuclear) button if the Soviets invaded Germany ... ending, "When they're marching up Whitehall, THEN would you press the button?" (or similar).
Whatever, there is a world of difference between 36 hours detention before being "examined" by a magistrate and 2,160 hours!
Streaky
streaky said:I was musing on this a few moments ago and it occured to me that there were some parallels with North Korea. There are around 200,000 political prisoners in N. Korean jails (there were more, but they shot them!), and wearing a T-shirt with an slogan expressing displeasure with the "Leader" is an offence that will see you joining the 200,000! - Streaky
Neo-Nazi? More like neo-Stalinist.
Thanks for your reasoned and thoughtful comments, Streaky. You're always a pleasure to read.
I heard a very interesting comment on the radio last week. The government has achieved one of its major aims by making people think that there is a trade-off between security and personal freedom. So, it can justify the reduction in personal freedom in the name of greater security. In fact, these are NOT two ends of the spectrum but completely separate things. Why should reducing personal freedom increase security? Where is the justification for that idea? Do you ever hear the proof? A careful logical exposition, for example, of which particular freedoms equal reduced security?
But the government's succeeded in getting the message over and that's most of the battle won. Now it's just a case of deciding how much personal freedom they can take away in the name of security.
I also heard last week that the terrorism bill as currently drafted would make it an offence for a journalist to visit a terrorist training camp! That's the sort of lax drafting that this government is so prone to. Without a strong upper house, or with a guillotine or other rush-job approach, this stuff can be left in the law, with unintended (or not?) consequences. Making kneejerk laws is never a good idea, and especially not when so much is at stake.
I heard a very interesting comment on the radio last week. The government has achieved one of its major aims by making people think that there is a trade-off between security and personal freedom. So, it can justify the reduction in personal freedom in the name of greater security. In fact, these are NOT two ends of the spectrum but completely separate things. Why should reducing personal freedom increase security? Where is the justification for that idea? Do you ever hear the proof? A careful logical exposition, for example, of which particular freedoms equal reduced security?
But the government's succeeded in getting the message over and that's most of the battle won. Now it's just a case of deciding how much personal freedom they can take away in the name of security.
I also heard last week that the terrorism bill as currently drafted would make it an offence for a journalist to visit a terrorist training camp! That's the sort of lax drafting that this government is so prone to. Without a strong upper house, or with a guillotine or other rush-job approach, this stuff can be left in the law, with unintended (or not?) consequences. Making kneejerk laws is never a good idea, and especially not when so much is at stake.
I really do not believe that there is a "war on terror", I'm sorry but this faction does not really exist, and is as Orwellian as Eurasia or Eastasia, it exists only to deny personal freedom, and increase the power of the Police State we are becoming used to.
The IRA tried it's best for years on end, we did not bow down and stop people from expressing their beliefs (extreme Catholic propaganda anyone? I heard it every week for years on end) or locking people up for long periods because they sounded a bit Irish.
The current “wave” of terrorist actions, whilst being deplorable is not on the same scale (fear wise) as we have been used to up until only a few years ago, and yet we feel the “need” to give up rights and freedoms we have had for centuries.
I feel the British public are being and have been duped and the quicker this bunch of charlatans can be removed from power the better.
All IMO of course.
The IRA tried it's best for years on end, we did not bow down and stop people from expressing their beliefs (extreme Catholic propaganda anyone? I heard it every week for years on end) or locking people up for long periods because they sounded a bit Irish.
The current “wave” of terrorist actions, whilst being deplorable is not on the same scale (fear wise) as we have been used to up until only a few years ago, and yet we feel the “need” to give up rights and freedoms we have had for centuries.
I feel the British public are being and have been duped and the quicker this bunch of charlatans can be removed from power the better.
All IMO of course.
gopher said:
I feel the British public are being and have been duped and the quicker this bunch of charlatans can be removed from power the better.
All IMO of course.
Too late. We had that opportunity earlier this year and our countrymen wasted it. Now they've 4 more years to do what they like...which will include raping the population of even more of their freedoms and their salaries!
gopher said:
The IRA tried it's best for years on end, we did not bow down and stop people from expressing their beliefs (extreme Catholic propaganda anyone? I heard it every week for years on end) or locking people up for long periods because they sounded a bit Irish.
.... you're sure about this last one are you ?
autismuk said:
..whenever the Police Service wants some good PR it arrests a few Moslems, claims they are terrorists, announced with full PR and Media coverage, and quietly releases them a bit later on. This is *NOT* a criticism of the BiB, but the idiots who run them !
Where's the evidence for that then. Not the usual "just believe me" drivel, but the hard evidence. The facts. Show me the published data. Show me the supporting report, evidence, summary, call it what you will. Get hold of the undercover operative, etc. I'm not saying you are wrong to have the opinion, you can think what you want, but it will be made more valuable if you can back it up. I await your evidence supporting your claim.
autismuk said:
..The Labour thugs do the same thing ; whenever they want something or want to distract from something then there's crap about having foiled massive terrorist attacks.
As above. Where're the facts.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff