Something very scary
Discussion
Hitler said:
"§ 1.The articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the constitution of the German Empire are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights to personal freedom [meaning habeas corpus], freedom of speech, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of letters, mail, telegraphs and telephones, order searches and confiscations and restrict property, even if this is not otherwise provided for by present law.
Reichstagsbrandverordnung, the Reichstag Fire Decree, passed by von Hindenberg's government on the Feb 28th 1933, at the behest of Adolf Hitler, representing one of the first steps used by the Nazis to secure total control over Germany
David Blunkett said:
22. 3. Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative; in particular, regulations may -
(d) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, movement to or from a specified place;
(e) require, or enable the requirement of, movement to or from a specified place;
(f) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds, at specified places or at specified times;
(g) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, travel at specified times;
(h) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other specified activities;
(i) create an offence of—
..(i) failing to comply with a provision of the regulations;
..(ii) failing to comply with a direction or order given or made under the regulations;
..(iii) obstructing a person in the performance of a function under or by virtue of the regulations;
(j) disapply or modify an enactment (other than a provision of this Part) or a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment;
(k) require a person or body to act in performance of a function (whether the function is conferred by the regulations or otherwise and whether or not the regulations also make provision for remuneration or
compensation);
(l) enable the Defence Council to authorise the deployment of Her Majesty’s armed forces;
(m) make provision (which may include conferring powers in relation to property) for facilitating any deployment of Her Majesty’s armed forces;
(n) confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal (which may include a tribunal established by the regulations);
(o) make provision which has effect in relation to, or to anything done in—
..(i) an area of the territorial sea,
..(ii) an area within British fishery limits, or
..(iii) an area of the continental shelf;
(p) make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances or for a specified purpose;
(q) make different provision for different circumstances or purposes.
Civil Contingencies Bill 2004
Should we be very scared?
>>> Edited by john_p on Tuesday 23 November 14:18
>>> Edited by john_p on Tuesday 23 November 14:19
Yes - Blunkett mays well have said "My Government will take the most sweeping and draconian powers ever bestowed upon a British government in peacetime, reserving the right to suspend the foundations of our liberties, such as habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, when it judges that an emergency has occurred"?
Yet, this is what the Civil Contingencies Act allows, and, as is often the case, its exceptional nature only really dawned upon Parliament at a late stage, leading to a flurry of 11th-hour attempts to hose it down. Peers introduced what is known as a "sunset" clause, whereby the measure would lapse after three years unless renewed. This was resisted by the Government, though ministers in the end agreed that if the emergency powers were used, there would be an independent inquiry afterwards to see if they had been properly deployed.
One peculiarity of this Act passed largely unnoticed, though it was picked up by Lady Buscombe, the Tory spokesman in the Lords. Under the legislation, if there is an emergency - and we have to take the Government's word for it that it would be of the utmost gravity - its powers would enable the Government to order the requisitioning of private property and to tell people where to go, what to do and when to do it. Laws to do with criminal evidence, trials and freedom of expression could be suspended. MPs and peers could be prevented from attending Parliament and it would be possible to take over the media, intern suspects and forcibly evacuate whole communities. Makes Stalin seem positively tame.
Yet, this is what the Civil Contingencies Act allows, and, as is often the case, its exceptional nature only really dawned upon Parliament at a late stage, leading to a flurry of 11th-hour attempts to hose it down. Peers introduced what is known as a "sunset" clause, whereby the measure would lapse after three years unless renewed. This was resisted by the Government, though ministers in the end agreed that if the emergency powers were used, there would be an independent inquiry afterwards to see if they had been properly deployed.
One peculiarity of this Act passed largely unnoticed, though it was picked up by Lady Buscombe, the Tory spokesman in the Lords. Under the legislation, if there is an emergency - and we have to take the Government's word for it that it would be of the utmost gravity - its powers would enable the Government to order the requisitioning of private property and to tell people where to go, what to do and when to do it. Laws to do with criminal evidence, trials and freedom of expression could be suspended. MPs and peers could be prevented from attending Parliament and it would be possible to take over the media, intern suspects and forcibly evacuate whole communities. Makes Stalin seem positively tame.
Plotloss said:
It is the duty of every single person in this country to remove these control freaks from power at the very earliest opportunity.
OK so how do we do that. seriously. What is the best we can do to remove them from power legitimately. There is a big crowd on here, what can we do collectively to persuade the good people of the country to vote for somebody else?
Unfortunately there are some people who just wont see the wood for the trees.
All we can do (other than start canvassing for the tories!) is hope really.
Hopefully this fox hunting fiasco will motivate the countryside to put an X in the blue box and thats a significant number of people.
There are a LOT of chavs though who are on a right winner under Bliar...
All we can do (other than start canvassing for the tories!) is hope really.
Hopefully this fox hunting fiasco will motivate the countryside to put an X in the blue box and thats a significant number of people.
There are a LOT of chavs though who are on a right winner under Bliar...
dans said:
It is the duty of every single person in this country to remove these control freaks from power at the very earliest opportunity.
OK so how do we do that. seriously. What is the best we can do to remove them from power legitimately. There is a big crowd on here, what can we do collectively to persuade the good people of the country to vote for somebody else?
It's desperate.
It would help if we could find somebody credible to stand against them. The current opposition is simply not up to it.
(And if anyone mentions Boris FUC
NG Johnson I will cease to be reasonable). Plotloss said:
Unfortunately there are some people who just wont see the wood for the trees.
All we can do (other than start canvassing for the tories!) is hope really.
Hopefully this fox hunting fiasco will motivate the countryside to put an X in the blue box and thats a significant number of people.
There are a LOT of chavs though who are on a right winner under Bliar...
The countryside already votes Tory. Unfortunately most seats are urban.
Neil_H said:
It is the duty of every single person in this country to remove these control freaks from power at the very earliest opportunity.
well said
And hands up who believes that if the Tories (or whoever) got in, they'd actually repeal an act giving them powers like that? 99% of politicians are control freaks who think they know how to run your life better than you do, so more power to themselves the better as far as they're concerned.
Used to have a quote on my wall entitled 'Nocks Grim Truth' (no idea who Nock was though): "Governments have power to do things to you and for you. They will inevitably make as much of the former as possible, and a little of the latter as possible."
Plotloss said:
...[will motivate] the countryside to put an X in the blue box and thats a significant number of people.
There are a LOT of chavs though who are on a right winner under Bliar...
The countryside already puts an X in the blue box; second point also correct, and they are in the majority... so I'd expect little change following an election...
(on a slightly related note, I was pretty impressed by UKIP's dirt-digging in the European parliament yesterday... they went up in my estimation!)
Plotloss said:
Unfortunately there are some people who just wont see the wood for the trees.
All we can do (other than start canvassing for the tories!) is hope really.
Hopefully this fox hunting fiasco will motivate the countryside to put an X in the blue box and thats a significant number of people.
There are a LOT of chavs though who are on a right winner under Bliar...
this is about spin and campaigning. They have clearly breached international Law and are using the security situation to spin their way out of it. it must be possible to use the web and some good marketing and press people to start to spin against that. not psing for them to be kicked out, but pushing for something positive, in this case getting them locked up
With regards to the countryside voters.
We only had a 52% turnout at the last one with Labour getting in with 24% of the electorate.
The countryside may already vote tory but at this general election they will be voting tory in their droves, anyone touched by the fox hunting ban will be motivated to vote and thats a good step in the right direction.
I think impeachment of some sort is a red herring, the only way to rid this nation of this foul socialist cancer is the old fashioned way - at the polls...
The current shadow cabinet are weak, they need to take the fight to Labour the way that Labour did in 95/96. Any cock up should be highlighted via a press release, any suspect decision highlighted.
Getting votes in the media age is about coverage and little else.
Start fighting like its a guerilla war...
We only had a 52% turnout at the last one with Labour getting in with 24% of the electorate.
The countryside may already vote tory but at this general election they will be voting tory in their droves, anyone touched by the fox hunting ban will be motivated to vote and thats a good step in the right direction.
I think impeachment of some sort is a red herring, the only way to rid this nation of this foul socialist cancer is the old fashioned way - at the polls...
The current shadow cabinet are weak, they need to take the fight to Labour the way that Labour did in 95/96. Any cock up should be highlighted via a press release, any suspect decision highlighted.
Getting votes in the media age is about coverage and little else.
Start fighting like its a guerilla war...
Just to add a bit to what I posted originally, these are the relevant sections of the German consitution that were removed.
Weimar Constitution said:
Article 114
The rights of the individual are inviolable. Limitation or deprivation of individual liberty is admissible only if based on laws.
Persons deprived of their liberty have to be notified, at the next day on the latest, by which authority and based on which reasons the deprivation of their liberty has been ordered; immediately they have to be given the opportunity to protest against the deprivation of liberty.
Article 115
Every German's home is an asylum and inviolable. Exceptions are admissible only if based on a law.
Article 116
An action can only be punished if the action has been described as punishable by law, before the action was undertaken.
Article 117
Privacy of correspondence, of mail, telegraphs and telephone are inviolable. Exceptions are admissible only if based on a Reich law.
Article 118
Every German is entitled, within the bounds set by general law, to express his opinion freely in word, writing, print, image or otherwise. No job contract may obstruct him in the exercise of this right; nobody may put him at a disadvantage if he makes use of this right.
There is no censorship; in case of the cinema, other regulations may be established by law. Also in order to combat trashy and obscene literature, as well as for the protection of the youth in public exhibitions and performances legal measures are permissible.
One difference is that whilst Hitler had the Gestapo to enforce his rules, we have Plod. Although they swallowed speed cameras hook line and sinker, there wil come a point where they will rebel too.
Nicking foxhunters is a case in point. There comes a point when there are so many, so petty laws that they can't all be enforced and the police will effectively ignore them.
Nicking foxhunters is a case in point. There comes a point when there are so many, so petty laws that they can't all be enforced and the police will effectively ignore them.
Neil_H said:
I'd like to see Poll Tax reintroduced, or any other means which persuades the chavs to remove themselves from the electoral register in order to avoid paying their way. No tax, no vote - sounds fair to me....
I'd like to see it reintroduced because it was fair.
Everyone has the same bins, streetlamps and coppers.
Everyone pays the same for those services.
There is no reasonable argument.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff