1984 Is Coming - Blair to Introduce the "Thought Police"
Discussion
Looks like there's no end to Nu Labour's Orwellian dreams. The Thought Police is on its way.......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6261791
"The government is planning "behaviour orders" for people considered to be at risk of committing a violent crime....
...The orders, similar in principle to Asbos, would put curfews or other restrictions on potential offenders, who might have no criminal convictions...."
....Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer says "If there's evidence that you could commit a violent offence in the future, proper evidence of that proved in a court, then why shouldn't you be restrained from committing that violent offence.".....
Looks like its 'thin end of the wedge' time. How long before this gets expanded to include other offences, not just the violent crimes?
Paranoid? Me?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6261791
"The government is planning "behaviour orders" for people considered to be at risk of committing a violent crime....
...The orders, similar in principle to Asbos, would put curfews or other restrictions on potential offenders, who might have no criminal convictions...."
....Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer says "If there's evidence that you could commit a violent offence in the future, proper evidence of that proved in a court, then why shouldn't you be restrained from committing that violent offence.".....
Looks like its 'thin end of the wedge' time. How long before this gets expanded to include other offences, not just the violent crimes?
Paranoid? Me?
alice Cupra said:
Looks like its 'thin end of the wedge' time. How long before this gets expanded to include other offences, not just the violent crimes?
It's already been expanding for ages. This is what speed limits are.
Speed limits are based not on a reality that there was a victim, or that there is a victim, but instead on a theoretical possibility: that in a teensy, tiny fraction of all instances there may prospectively be a victim.
Of course, there probably will be no victim, but that doesn't matter.
irm said:
now where is that application form for new zealand ??
This lot have no ideas of their own so it would not surprise me if they found this one in New Zealand - or Oz.
There are no safe havens from stupidity and propaganda.
May as well move somewhere warm and wait for the onset of Alzheimer's - at least one wouldn't care then ...
flemke said:
alice Cupra said:
Looks like its 'thin end of the wedge' time. How long before this gets expanded to include other offences, not just the violent crimes?
It's already been expanding for ages. This is what speed limits are.
Speed limits are based not on a reality that there was a victim, or that there is a victim, but instead on a theoretical possibility: that in a teensy, tiny fraction of all instances there may prospectively be a victim.
Of course, there probably will be no victim, but that doesn't matter.
Nobody gets prosecuted because they might break the speed limit, they get prosecuted when they do.
Unless there is an accident involved, almost all transgretions of Road Traffic law have no victim, that includes drink/drug driving, dangerous driving, driving whilst banned, without a licence, without insurance ect.
Are you suggesting that none of these laws are enforced because they are victimless, or that we should wat until there is a victim before they are.
I seem to recall the phrase
Innocent until Proven Guilty!
Is that still the case? perhaps not!
Given that
1. The Scumbags that get ASBOS ignore them
2. There are already laws against what they will do
What in gods name makes anyone thing that yobs will take any notice of these pre offense ASBOs?
While I am not a supporter of the nanny state, restrictions being placed on a person who has committed no crime and has not been convicted in a court has to be againts their human rights.
we would soon shout if plod took your car away because it has the potential to brake the speed limit.
Its like bloody Nazi Germany in this country!
Innocent until Proven Guilty!
Is that still the case? perhaps not!
Given that
1. The Scumbags that get ASBOS ignore them
2. There are already laws against what they will do
What in gods name makes anyone thing that yobs will take any notice of these pre offense ASBOs?
While I am not a supporter of the nanny state, restrictions being placed on a person who has committed no crime and has not been convicted in a court has to be againts their human rights.
we would soon shout if plod took your car away because it has the potential to brake the speed limit.
Its like bloody Nazi Germany in this country!
M5Dave said:
flemke said:
alice Cupra said:
Looks like its 'thin end of the wedge' time. How long before this gets expanded to include other offences, not just the violent crimes?
It's already been expanding for ages. This is what speed limits are.
Speed limits are based not on a reality that there was a victim, or that there is a victim, but instead on a theoretical possibility: that in a teensy, tiny fraction of all instances there may prospectively be a victim.
Of course, there probably will be no victim, but that doesn't matter.
Nobody gets prosecuted because they might break the speed limit, they get prosecuted when they do.
So the question remains is it right to prosecute people driving safely above the limit, in the name of preventative enforcement?
M5Dave said:
Unless there is an accident involved, almost all transgretions of Road Traffic law have no victim, that includes drink/drug driving, dangerous driving, driving whilst banned, without a licence, without insurance ect.
Are you suggesting that none of these laws are enforced because they are victimless, or that we should wat until there is a victim before they are.
Those offences need enforcement for the greater good in society.
Does the 70 motorway limit serve us all so well?
M5Dave said:
flemke said:
alice Cupra said:
Looks like its 'thin end of the wedge' time. How long before this gets expanded to include other offences, not just the violent crimes?
It's already been expanding for ages. This is what speed limits are.
Speed limits are based not on a reality that there was a victim, or that there is a victim, but instead on a theoretical possibility: that in a teensy, tiny fraction of all instances there may prospectively be a victim.
Of course, there probably will be no victim, but that doesn't matter.
Nobody gets prosecuted because they might break the speed limit, they get prosecuted when they do.
Unless there is an accident involved, almost all transgretions of Road Traffic law have no victim, that includes drink/drug driving, dangerous driving, driving whilst banned, without a licence, without insurance ect.
Are you suggesting that none of these laws are enforced because they are victimless, or that we should wat until there is a victim before they are.
You sure you're first name isn't Gordon?
irm said:
now where is that application form for new zealand ??
Haven't you seen the NZ equivalent of "Traffic Cops". Everybodys at fault no matter what. They make even VH look nice. Saw one guy have a puncture on a trailer. Did him for stopping on a highway despite the fact it would have been dangerous to continue and he had a spare!
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that a system of "mind control" is being applied to us all..
IF .... You DON'T like something..... HOW? do you get rid of it WITH popular support?..
I'll tell you how, SUPPORT IT!.....MASSIVELY! (loadsa' Public money - maybe?).... Take it to the ridiculous extreme! until people cry: FOUL!
Like the "Human rights" legislation, which in Europe has NOT caused the same confusion that it has here in Britain because here, the right wing lawyers have pushed it to the limit to discredit it..
You pick another subject of your own choosing with this in mind .... see if I ain't right!
Either this or our leaders are just: Thick! ..... somehow I don't think so..
You're being: Managed!.......... just like: the cattle in the field!
IF .... You DON'T like something..... HOW? do you get rid of it WITH popular support?..
I'll tell you how, SUPPORT IT!.....MASSIVELY! (loadsa' Public money - maybe?).... Take it to the ridiculous extreme! until people cry: FOUL!
Like the "Human rights" legislation, which in Europe has NOT caused the same confusion that it has here in Britain because here, the right wing lawyers have pushed it to the limit to discredit it..
You pick another subject of your own choosing with this in mind .... see if I ain't right!
Either this or our leaders are just: Thick! ..... somehow I don't think so..
You're being: Managed!.......... just like: the cattle in the field!
M5Dave said:
Unless there is an accident involved, almost all transgretions of Road Traffic law have no victim, that includes drink/drug driving, dangerous driving, driving whilst banned, without a licence, without insurance ect.
Are you suggesting that none of these laws are enforced because they are victimless, or that we should wat until there is a victim before they are.
Are you suggesting that none of these laws are enforced because they are victimless, or that we should wat until there is a victim before they are.
There's a case to be made that these are all substantially different from the offence of speeding.
Firstly, it is possible to travel at 70MPH (legal) on a motorway and then travel at 71MPH (illegal) and then 70MPH again, within seconds, without being able to tell and without any perceptible change from anyone's point of view; you'll need a GPS or speed gun to tell.
It's not possible to be legal, then drunk/high, then legal, then drunk/high again. People cannot oscillate between banned and not on the same journey.
People are being prosecuted for 81MPH on the motorway. I'd bet if you were in a car at 81MPH on the motorway, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and 70.
What has been served by prosecuting these people? Reduced risk? On the motorway?
Of course, if you're in favour of pre-emptive nicking (which is what prosecution for speeding alone always is), then I think it's high time we pulled you in for the murder you might commit next week.
What? You're just chopping your vegetables with that knife?
A likely story. You're nicked, sunshine.
Edited by CommanderJameson on Tuesday 16th January 07:55
Another BBC story said:
Apparently 136 motoring enthusiasts are currently being held at a secure location because intelligence suggested they were thinking about blowing up the Houses of Parliament.
Early reports say the group were trying to build a conveyor built that they would use to launch a plane that would nuke London from orbit - although the only evidence is 6 rubber bands and an airfix kit.
Early reports say the group were trying to build a conveyor built that they would use to launch a plane that would nuke London from orbit - although the only evidence is 6 rubber bands and an airfix kit.
There are already laws against "planning" terrorist acts, and I suppose "assault" is a thought crime (until it becomes ABH / GBH etc), but this does seem a step too far.
Edited by tigger1 on Tuesday 16th January 11:30
tigger1 said:
There are already laws against "planning" terrorist acts, and I suppose "assault" is a thought crime (until it becomes ABH / GBH etc), but this does seem a step too far.
Planning a terrorist act tends to require physical evidence and proof of intent to commit an offence.
Assault is not a thought crime at all. The perception of the victim is accounted for though.
This is talking about taking action against those who have not done anything in relation to committing an offence, but are thought to be likely to do so. Not acceptable. Totally disgusting, and ought to be an offence to the morality of society.
jasandjules said:
tigger1 said:
There are already laws against "planning" terrorist acts, and I suppose "assault" is a thought crime (until it becomes ABH / GBH etc), but this does seem a step too far.
Planning a terrorist act tends to require physical evidence and proof of intent to commit an offence.
Unless you're of a certain ethnic origin and outside the UK, then it's off to Gitmo for you matey.
Why don't they spend all this time and effort sorting out the urban shitholes 95% of these people come from?
Rather than spend millions on these pointless unethical, immoral and illegal schemes, why not rejuvenate run down housing estates, repurchase school playing fields, invest in sports and activity after school clubs and give people something to do other than smoke crack outside a bus shelter.
How, with the benefit of 4,000 years of civilaisation, we can exist like this I cannot comprehend.
Oh, and bring back manners to the natural curriculum - I always hold doors for people, and rarely if ever get a thanks, winds me right up!
Rather than spend millions on these pointless unethical, immoral and illegal schemes, why not rejuvenate run down housing estates, repurchase school playing fields, invest in sports and activity after school clubs and give people something to do other than smoke crack outside a bus shelter.
How, with the benefit of 4,000 years of civilaisation, we can exist like this I cannot comprehend.
Oh, and bring back manners to the natural curriculum - I always hold doors for people, and rarely if ever get a thanks, winds me right up!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff