Police run the country ... OFFICIAL!
Discussion
havoc said:
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!
Exactly. Some of those who didn't vote, will be standing up and saying I don't like this, I don't like that, I wish this wasn't happening, etc. Then they come out with the usual b*ll*cks about withholding the vote is a good way of expressing mistrust. Yeah right, it's also a good way of sitting on your fat lazy arse and doing nothing.
havoc said:
I went and voted, but I live in such a safe labour seat it's a joke - late-60's% last time, 70+% this time, IIRC. So I spoiled my ballot...seemed more useful than voting for the opposition.
No no no, Havoc. That's what they want you to think. If you went to vote, you must have preferred something or someone. Vote for 'em please. It's so important that I ask you to do it even though I suspect you would vote against the party I support (ya dirty rotten swine).
However, better that than the t*ss*ers that sit at home and then complain about it.
Another word on abuse of "anti-terror legislation". Measures to make it easier to extradite suspected terrorists from the UK to the USA have been used to ensure three British bankers stand trial in the USA on charges connected with the collapse of Enron.
An indictment of those who claim that this perverted government will not misuse the legislation it rams through Parliament, supposedly in defence of British citizens!
Streaky
[Edited for typo - S
>> Edited by streaky on Friday 21st October 06:30
An indictment of those who claim that this perverted government will not misuse the legislation it rams through Parliament, supposedly in defence of British citizens!
Streaky
[Edited for typo - S
>> Edited by streaky on Friday 21st October 06:30
Streaky, I have great respect for you, and I realise that I am: "batting outside my strength" here.
But Streaky, I remember some years ago during a miners strike.....That cars registered to (funnily enough..miners) were stopped on the Motorway and threatened to turn back, no matter what they said, or be arrested! ......
I didn't hear any critisism of this practice then?...
The dreaded BBC didn't jump on "Maggie" and say: "What the Fech?"....this is unconstitutional?" Much of what was done has NEVER been reported under "D" notices..
I witnessed (with no involvment on my behalf) ARMY convoys of troups travelling the M1 and M5 during those times in police vehicles... Something which is forbidden under European law...
i.e. the state cannot envoke the force of the armed forces against its own Citizens.......
or maybe we, the british are but....subjects...NOT ...Citizens!
The British people need to: "wake up".....
But Streaky, I remember some years ago during a miners strike.....That cars registered to (funnily enough..miners) were stopped on the Motorway and threatened to turn back, no matter what they said, or be arrested! ......
I didn't hear any critisism of this practice then?...
The dreaded BBC didn't jump on "Maggie" and say: "What the Fech?"....this is unconstitutional?" Much of what was done has NEVER been reported under "D" notices..
I witnessed (with no involvment on my behalf) ARMY convoys of troups travelling the M1 and M5 during those times in police vehicles... Something which is forbidden under European law...
i.e. the state cannot envoke the force of the armed forces against its own Citizens.......
or maybe we, the british are but....subjects...NOT ...Citizens!
The British people need to: "wake up".....
8Pack said:
Streaky, I have great respect for you, and I realise that I am: "batting outside my strength" here.
But Streaky, I remember some years ago during a miners strike.....That cars registered to (funnily enough..miners) were stopped on the Motorway and threatened to turn back, no matter what they said, or be arrested! ......
I didn't hear any critisism of this practice then?...
The dreaded BBC didn't jump on "Maggie" and say: "What the Fech?"....this is unconstitutional?" Much of what was done has NEVER been reported under "D" notices..
I witnessed (with no involvment on my behalf) ARMY convoys of troups travelling the M1 and M5 during those times in police vehicles... Something which is forbidden under European law...
i.e. the state cannot envoke the force of the armed forces against its own Citizens.......
or maybe we, the british are but....subjects...NOT ...Citizens!
The British people need to: "wake up".....
Exactly, well put.
It's not just happening now. I also saw that happen in the miners strike, and I saw the total lack of support from many who would say they are 'concerned' about things going on now. They said absolutely sod all then, so why now?
I know for a fact that the Army were used. Again, no outcry. So, loud protestations now, but kept their mouth shut then. Why?
There have been numerous attacks on civil liberties over many many years. So why are folk banging on about it now, as if it's all a New Labour thing. There are some (like Streaky) who clearly know what they are on about. However, I honestly believe that the internet/chat room/mass communication has made it easier for the mass to do nothing, but to then express so called 'outrage'. What else explains the massive so called support now for things that have been happening for many many years.
I suspect that for every one soldier of action there 1,000 anonymous 'heros' sitting on the bandwagon writing "Bravo".
Apologies for wading in late, but on the subject of 'hoodie culture' when our most popular paper is written with a reading age of 8 is it any wonder the parents of our next generation wouldn't know about UK home office policy if it came and bit them on the backside..
As for the kids, it's always easy to generalise, but can I just say one thing STOP SELLING SCHOOL SPORTS FIELDS !!!!!!... oh hang on a minute, the town's short of space for new houses, now what shall we do with one of the places kids can go and do something fun and exciting on, I know we'll sell these to developers so we can squeeze even more families in, and restrict the choice for the growing number of kids even more, leaving them even less to occupy themselves, and invariably leave them bored and in search of entertainment...
It's such a glaryingly obvious thing, we've got obese kids, we've got bored kids, we've got kids turning to alcohol, vandalism and generally being a pain in the harris, yet what are we doing, selling the one place they can interact, have fun, develop etc
As for the kids, it's always easy to generalise, but can I just say one thing STOP SELLING SCHOOL SPORTS FIELDS !!!!!!... oh hang on a minute, the town's short of space for new houses, now what shall we do with one of the places kids can go and do something fun and exciting on, I know we'll sell these to developers so we can squeeze even more families in, and restrict the choice for the growing number of kids even more, leaving them even less to occupy themselves, and invariably leave them bored and in search of entertainment...
It's such a glaryingly obvious thing, we've got obese kids, we've got bored kids, we've got kids turning to alcohol, vandalism and generally being a pain in the harris, yet what are we doing, selling the one place they can interact, have fun, develop etc
A footnote to all this (posted in "I'm Getting Disillusioned with the Police" as well):
Nicky Samengo-Turner was cleared at Southwark Crown Court on Wednesday of having an offensive weapon and a blade in a public place.
You might remember that he was arrested when stopped in an "anti-terrorist exercise" and found to be in possession of a Victorinox (R) "multipurpose tool" and a baton in his briefcase.
In the (London) Evening Standard last night (28Oct05) he recounted the experience of being arrested and held in a cell, of arriving back at his car and finding that it had been ticketed by one of the officers who had arrested him, of the worry of his court appearance and eventual relief when a jury expressed their opinion that he was not guilty, of his annoyance when the judge considered landing him with some of the prosecution costs "because he had brought it upon himself", and of his wife having her handbag snatched a few yards from the court during the three-day case and being unable to interest any of the police around there in the theft (she also had to report the theft twice by dialing 999, as there was "no record" of her original call - now how many times is that being heard today?).
A triumph for British justice and the sensibility of 12 "good men and true" (and women too - apparently I can't say "ladies", it's not politicaly correct ... so I hope they won't be concerned when I address then in the singular as "woman"!).
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Saturday 29th October 07:31
Nicky Samengo-Turner was cleared at Southwark Crown Court on Wednesday of having an offensive weapon and a blade in a public place.
You might remember that he was arrested when stopped in an "anti-terrorist exercise" and found to be in possession of a Victorinox (R) "multipurpose tool" and a baton in his briefcase.
In the (London) Evening Standard last night (28Oct05) he recounted the experience of being arrested and held in a cell, of arriving back at his car and finding that it had been ticketed by one of the officers who had arrested him, of the worry of his court appearance and eventual relief when a jury expressed their opinion that he was not guilty, of his annoyance when the judge considered landing him with some of the prosecution costs "because he had brought it upon himself", and of his wife having her handbag snatched a few yards from the court during the three-day case and being unable to interest any of the police around there in the theft (she also had to report the theft twice by dialing 999, as there was "no record" of her original call - now how many times is that being heard today?).
A triumph for British justice and the sensibility of 12 "good men and true" (and women too - apparently I can't say "ladies", it's not politicaly correct ... so I hope they won't be concerned when I address then in the singular as "woman"!).
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Saturday 29th October 07:31
Again this week we have had BLiar (the "Teflon Tony" version" stating that he "Must do what the police (i.e. the other BLiar) tell him". IIRC (and my memory is fading 
) Nu Labia was elected by the voters (a minority thereof, admittedly), not by the police nor by BLiar (the "cozening Commissioner" variety).
The charges brought against two men yesterday, of an alleged car bomb plot in the UK, were at the last gasp before they had to release them. On the "evidence" reported in the press, the charges appear weak.
Doubtless the police would claim that, if they had more time, they could effect more evidence. But a report earlier in the weak indicated that in one current case forensic scientists had been analysing the hard disk on a seized computer for three months and needed at least one more month to complete their analysis. So, on that basis, 120 days would seem more appropriate. And so it would go on. If the hard disk were larger, more time would be needed. In one case, I recall that it took nearly six months to find one piece of evidence on a hard disk that led to an arrest ... so perhaps 180 days would be appropriate.
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Saturday 12th November 05:19
) Nu Labia was elected by the voters (a minority thereof, admittedly), not by the police nor by BLiar (the "cozening Commissioner" variety). The charges brought against two men yesterday, of an alleged car bomb plot in the UK, were at the last gasp before they had to release them. On the "evidence" reported in the press, the charges appear weak.
Doubtless the police would claim that, if they had more time, they could effect more evidence. But a report earlier in the weak indicated that in one current case forensic scientists had been analysing the hard disk on a seized computer for three months and needed at least one more month to complete their analysis. So, on that basis, 120 days would seem more appropriate. And so it would go on. If the hard disk were larger, more time would be needed. In one case, I recall that it took nearly six months to find one piece of evidence on a hard disk that led to an arrest ... so perhaps 180 days would be appropriate.
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Saturday 12th November 05:19
Firefly said:
Am i the only one who welcomes the Anti-Terror laws? What's the chance of me being 'banged up' for 90 days? Zilch, that's the answer. Bring 'em on as far as i'm concerned! These are unique times which call for unique laws. The majority of the British public, i believe, have had enough of the Civil liberties crap. The more laws like this the better......
You probably won't get locked up, and judging by the posts here, that is your primary concern. And my primary problem. Civil liberties is about the greater good and in this instance Terrorists want to change our way of life, if we change it for them through fatuous and draconian legislation they have won. plain and simple. History tells us that an erosion of civil liberties in favour of state control is a bad thing. An I am as aganst it as I can be.
Just remember thet the 4 men who attacked the tube were only able to do so because the security services decided they were not a threat. This new legislation would not have changed that position, they would still have been free, we on the other hand would not. Not free of oppressive state control and not free of living with the shame of a legal system where a man can be arrested, left to rot unaided for 90 days in one of our overcrowded jails while the case is built against them using evidence obtained under torture by other countries.
I am glad you are all right Jack, but remember your inactions may leave you comfy on your sofa in a warm banket of false security, but there are others who will suffer injustly and greatly as a result of this folly. I also suspect that if the rights being eroded here were related you your being able to drive freely, you'd be burning the barricades with the rest of us.
PS I am a company director, not that it is any more relevant here than in your post.
The politicisation of the police is nearly complete.
In a misguided attempt to force through the 90 day "limit", both BLiars ("Teflon Tony" and the "Cozening Commissioner" induced (or, to put it another way, "ordered" CCs to write to MPs supporting the "90 days" - a draft letter (which most copied fairly slavishly) was sent to them. The "Cozening Commissioner" stalked the corridors of the Palace of Westminster berating MPs of all political persuasions to vote for the "90 days". Given that they are all shortly coming up for "re-election" to a much-diminished number of jobs, it is hardly surprising that they snapped to attention and did the government's bidding.
For 150 years the police in the UK have had a clear separation from the politicos. Historically, didn't policemen have to refrain from involvement in politics? When did this obligation end?
At a stroke (or, rather, a series of them), Nu Labia has undermined much of what previously underpinned the UK's solid and reliable and trusted legislature, judiciary and police force (sorry, "service".
When it comes to numbers, BLiar is expert at suborning and inveigling those around him to support and promote his "cause". The Chairman of the JIC backed the false "launch WMD in 45 minutes" claim (and got a peerage and a promotion afterwards). CCs write backing 90 days (and hope for a new job in a bigger command ... and possibly a knighthood too?).
As I have posted before, the time just goes up ... but the arguments for increasing it remain the same. Tracking telephone calls and breaking encryption systems were two of the reasons given for the previous increase to 14 days ... this time they were trotted out to support an increase to 90 days. Give it one more terrorist attack in the UK and they'll be trotted out to support detention for 120 days or more.
I guess tanks outside Heathrow would have been somewhat obvious (and, that is not intended as a pun!) this time around, but I half expected something dramatic last Tuesday/Wednesday. The lobbying of MPs by CCs was a bad move, and might have proved the final straw for some of our representatives. At the least, it should finally have convinced them of how far BLiar want to push this country into a "Police State".
Streaky
In a misguided attempt to force through the 90 day "limit", both BLiars ("Teflon Tony" and the "Cozening Commissioner"
induced (or, to put it another way, "ordered" CCs to write to MPs supporting the "90 days" - a draft letter (which most copied fairly slavishly) was sent to them. The "Cozening Commissioner" stalked the corridors of the Palace of Westminster berating MPs of all political persuasions to vote for the "90 days". Given that they are all shortly coming up for "re-election" to a much-diminished number of jobs, it is hardly surprising that they snapped to attention and did the government's bidding. For 150 years the police in the UK have had a clear separation from the politicos. Historically, didn't policemen have to refrain from involvement in politics? When did this obligation end?
At a stroke (or, rather, a series of them), Nu Labia has undermined much of what previously underpinned the UK's solid and reliable and trusted legislature, judiciary and police force (sorry, "service"
. When it comes to numbers, BLiar is expert at suborning and inveigling those around him to support and promote his "cause". The Chairman of the JIC backed the false "launch WMD in 45 minutes" claim (and got a peerage and a promotion afterwards). CCs write backing 90 days (and hope for a new job in a bigger command ... and possibly a knighthood too?).
As I have posted before, the time just goes up ... but the arguments for increasing it remain the same. Tracking telephone calls and breaking encryption systems were two of the reasons given for the previous increase to 14 days ... this time they were trotted out to support an increase to 90 days. Give it one more terrorist attack in the UK and they'll be trotted out to support detention for 120 days or more.
I guess tanks outside Heathrow would have been somewhat obvious (and, that is not intended as a pun!) this time around, but I half expected something dramatic last Tuesday/Wednesday. The lobbying of MPs by CCs was a bad move, and might have proved the final straw for some of our representatives. At the least, it should finally have convinced them of how far BLiar want to push this country into a "Police State".
Streaky
streaky said:
The politicisation of the police is nearly complete.
According to Private Eye magazine,
Australia has a 24 hour limit before charges must be brought
and has had 88 die in terrorist acts,
Spain has five days and 191 deaths,
USA has seven days and 3,000 deaths,
UK police have asked for 90 days and have had 52 deaths.
As we can see, UK police request is way outside common
practice in the rest of the world.
UK police seem to be saying they are 90 times less effective
than Aussie coppers.
Seems silly to me, although could have been a straight forward
poker play of asking for 90 days and being happy with 30 days.
streaky said:
I guess tanks outside Heathrow would have been somewhat obvious (and, that is not intended as a pun!) this time around, but I half expected something dramatic last Tuesday/Wednesday. The lobbying of MPs by CCs was a bad move, and might have proved the final straw for some of our representatives. At the least, it should finally have convinced them of how far BLiar want to push this country into a "Police State".
Streaky
We almost did. We had the Right Honorable MP for the Met Police Ian Blair telling us that there was new "chilling" evidence of new attacks. He didn't go on to explain why it was "chilling" rather than say "substainal" or "credible" or "no different to any other point in time over the last 20 years"
dcb said:
The politicisation of the police is nearly complete.
According to Private Eye magazine,
Australia has a 24 hour limit before charges must be brought
and has had 88 die in terrorist acts,
Spain has five days and 191 deaths,
USA has seven days and 3,000 deaths,
UK police have asked for 90 days and have had 52 deaths.
As we can see, UK police request is way outside common
practice in the rest of the world.
UK police seem to be saying they are 90 times less effective
than Aussie coppers.
Seems silly to me, although could have been a straight forward
poker play of asking for 90 days and being happy with 30 days.
The government are trying to brainwash people into thinking there is some link between the length of time someone can be detained without trial and the incidence of terrorism. It's like suggesting that monitoring speed and taking money off people for exceeding a certain limit will reduce the chance of an accident...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff