Thought policing in UK

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I've asked this question a few times,

what is teh diference betwen an Police state and a Nanny State??

Simple

Nanny State will stop you doing what you want on the basis that it's not good for you.
Police state will stop you doing what you want to do on the basis that it's not good for them.

Diogenes wrote: »

I'm sorry where exactly is the "satanist paraphernalia"


Oh wait, towards the end.

So to be clear, you think that this instances where people's free speech are being "oppressed" are outrageous but you are similarly offended by freedom of religious expression.

Interesting. I'd be of the opinion that the author of the piece is highlighting how the normal and generally mundane is effectively being outlawed, while the unusual and bizarre seems to be supported. In general, what's happening with Britain is that in it's efforts to be politically correct, the state is actually criminalising behaviour that has traditionally been protected by the notion of what we deem to be free speech. By offering certain "rights" to minorities, the state is alienating the majority.

Firstly in every example in your piece, the charges were dropped, and in every instance the general reaction of the judicary is to express amazement that these cases were brought this far in the first place.

Thats hardly a "thought police state".

And do you believe that it's ok that many of those charges should have been brought in the first place?

Secondly just to re-iterate you and the author seem outraged that certain freedoms seem to be "eroding" but at the same time equally outraged that people seem to have more freedoms. It seems that both you and the author seem to want to be the absolute moral adjudicators of what is acceptable in modern society.

And he's right to be outraged (as you seem to think he is). In a "free" state everyone has (or is expected to have) the same rights. The erosion of a set of accepted rights for one group e.g. free speech and freedom to express, so as not to offend or alienate another group, while at the same time allowing other groups to break some minor laws will not lead to Labours all-accepting, all loving state, it will lead to disharmony and splits in communities. It's as if it's one rule for them and a different one for the others.

My uncle lives in Oldham and was stopped by police about 3 years ago for jaywalking, He's been in England for 50 years but his Dublin accent sometimes still comes through. The cop noticed and asked him if he was Irish. When my uncle said he was the cop asked if we had cars in Ireland when he left. My uncle told him that 3 or 4 cars a day would pass by his house when he was a kid and the cop replied "Well, in that case, we'll let it go. You need to be careful on these streets. They can get very busy."

This is comparable to an African immigrant being allowed walk the streets of London naked because he came from a jungle and that's what they do there. Based on the reasons that these "crimes" are allowed to go "unpunished" while a native Englishman wouldn't have gotten away with either, we can see the possibility of the emergence of an even more divided society.

The example of the little girl being arrested for asking to be moved away from a group because she couldn't understand them is the ultimate extreme. I have no doubt that if a foreign, non English speaking child had been in the same situation the teacher would have bent over backward to accommodate her. Again, in this instance, divisions are being created.

Such divisions create excesses of policy and lead to support for fringe politicians and parties (BNP anyone?). With a lot of the legislation that is now in place in the UK, an extreme nationalist party or an extreme socialist party would find itself with the ground work already done to move Britain from the nanny state toward the police state.

The list was covered already in another thread I think.