Is Britain the NWO Test State?

meglome · 01-04-2009 7:19pm

Heineken Helen wrote: »

I can't post it cos it's all personal intrusion and most of it has lead to me believing that anything I DO post..................................................

So you've started a discussion in a discussion forum that you won't discuss?

Heineken Helen · 02-04-2009 1:13pm

meglome wrote: »

So you've started a discussion in a discussion forum that you won't discuss?

Just stating my opinion on what I've observed between living in the two countries.

meglome · 02-04-2009 1:56pm

Heineken Helen wrote: »

Just stating my opinion on what I've observed between living in the two countries.

Is that the opinion you won't discuss?

6th · 02-04-2009 2:18pm

meglome wrote: »

Is that the opinion you won't discuss?

The Charter wrote:

Where someone states something as their opinion it is just that, an opinion. Asking "why" they believe something if fine, demanding proof/evidence is not.

I know you're not demanding anything just highlighting it sooner rather than later

Heineken Helen · 02-04-2009 2:31pm

6th wrote: »

I know you're not demanding anything just highlighting it sooner rather than later

Hence the reason I didn't reply. Since a continuation of explaining why would possibly result in a banning.

How about this... I'm applying for jobs at the mo... MANY of the jobs I've seen advertised require a full enhanced police check... I can understand if it were working with kids or something, which some of them are, but some are just simple admin jobs. Perhaps that's being done at home too since it's been a long time since I was looking for jobs in Dublin? Also, most of them, when you apply ask you to fill out an 'equal opportunities' form... which means that, in order to prove they don't discriminate, you have to give them ALL your details which it used to be illegal to even ASK about:eek: kinda defeats the point if you ask me... I will find a link to back this up. Here's a few random jobs requiring CRB checks:

http://www.totaljobs.com/JobSearch/JobDetails.aspx?JobId=43672396&Keywords=crb

http://www.totaljobs.com/JobSearch/JobDetails.aspx?JobId=43738666&Keywords=crb

http://www.totaljobs.com/JobSearch/JobDetails.aspx?JobId=43463983&Keywords=crb

http://www.totaljobs.com/JobSearch/JobDetails.aspx?JobId=43678578&Keywords=crb

http://www.totaljobs.com/JobSearch/JobDetails.aspx?JobId=43660275&Keywords=crb

Equal opportunities form:

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:NOcTaevlXZ8J:www.torbay.gov.uk/equal-opportunities-recruitment-form.doc+equal+opportunities+form&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:2Qt3W6ugGucJ:www.helpage.org/Aboutus/WorkingforHelpAgeInternational/Equalopportunities/main_content/EQUALOPPORTUNITIESFORM05.doc+equal+opportunities+form&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

That enough links for ya? Well that's just stuff that effects day to day stuff... that's not even scratching the surface.

King Mob · 02-04-2009 2:42pm

You realise most of the stuff on the equal opportunities form is stuff you'd be able to guess by talking to the person for five minutes right?

meglome · 02-04-2009 2:48pm

I would ask why not? I mean I run a business and if you're hiring someone it can be difficult to tell if they are telling you the truth. Now imagine you work with children or other vulnerable people.

http://www.crb.gov.uk wrote:

The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), an Executive Agency of the Home Office, provides wider access to criminal record information through its Disclosure service. This service enables organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors to make safer recruitment decisions by identifying candidates who may be unsuitable for certain work, especially that involve children or vulnerable adults. The CRB was established under Part V of the Police Act 1997 and was launched in March 2002.

Prior to 2002, access to police checks was mainly confined to organisations in the statutory sector for staff who had ‘substantial unsupervised access’ to children. There were many other organisations that could not access these checks and yet had staff with similar access to vulnerable groups. The CRB enables many more organisations to access these checks as part of good recruitment practice.

Organisations wishing to use the service can ask successful job applicants to apply for one of two types of check. The type of check required will depend upon the nature of the position. These are called Enhanced and Standard Disclosures, both require a fee but are free of charge to volunteers.

Heineken Helen · 02-04-2009 2:48pm

King Mob wrote: »

You realise most of the stuff on the equal opportunities form is stuff you'd be able to guess by talking to the person for five minutes right?

and some of it you wouldn't, i.e. whether they have kids, a disability may not be apparent, whether they're single or married, their age, etc. It's not just about gender and race... some of the ones I've filled out have asked about pretty much every kinda medical condition under the sun... and of course you sign at the bottom that, if you haven't told the truth, any contract would be null and void:rolleyes: so you may actually HAVE to tell them that you do get really bad periods every 6 months or so :eek: which, is none of their business at ALL.

Heineken Helen · 02-04-2009 2:50pm

meglome wrote: »

I would ask why not? I mean I run a business and if you're hiring someone it can be difficult to tell if they are telling you the truth. Now imagine you work with children or other vulnerable people.

I do understand IF you're working with children or vulnerable people... of course... but many of them are just for normal office jobs. Why should I have to go to the police and PAY for a form to prove I'm telling the truth?

King Mob · 02-04-2009 2:55pm

Heineken Helen wrote: »

and some of it you wouldn't, i.e. whether they have kids, a disability may not be apparent, whether they're single or married, their age, etc. It's not just about gender and race... some of the ones I've filled out have asked about pretty much every kinda medical condition under the sun... and of course you sign at the bottom that, if you haven't told the truth, any contract would be null and void:rolleyes: so you may actually HAVE to tell them that you do get really bad periods every 6 months or so :eek: which, is none of their business at ALL.

And? If it would effect your work it would be important to tell an employer.
But that's not on those forms.
Why is it so weird that they would ask whether you're married or single or how many children you have?

And where exactly is the conspiracy?

Heineken Helen · 02-04-2009 3:14pm

King Mob wrote: »

And? If it would effect your work it would be important to tell an employer.
But that's not on those forms.
Why is it so weird that they would ask whether you're married or single or how many children you have?

And where exactly is the conspiracy?

Because I've been told by people at the job centre and also from agencies that it's illegal to ask those questions (for the record I'm single and childless). It's weird cos it's none of their business... how do they know IF it will affect your work? Many people have kids and are as reliable and efficient as those who don't, yet it could go against you in your application... an employer may assume that someone with kids would take more time off.

It's not a conspiracy if it's there for all to see... it's just that on the one hand they tell you something is illegal, on the other hand they can ask it but in a different way. So if you put down that you've no stomach troubles, and suddenly you get a stomach bug, the employer may well be entitled to sack you for 'lying' on your application. Or if you DO say that you suffer from bad periods, is it then ok to call in sick once a month for a couple of days and say 'well I told you so'? I highly doubt it. On the other hand, if you do get it bad one time and have to call in sick, this may now become a sackable offence:rolleyes:

The key words being 'if it would affect your work', I'm fine with them asking if you've a disability which would affect your work cos they DO need to know this... but if it's one that has never affected your work, why do they need to know about this? It may even be understandable ONCE you've got the job that they should know of any conditions in case of an emergency and they can say that's what you have... but why do they have the right to get such personal details on a job application? For the record again, I don't suffer from any of the conditions but it's simply embarrassing filling out the form, and I'd imagine even more so if you DO happen to suffer from diarrhoea:D

King Mob · 02-04-2009 3:40pm

Heineken Helen wrote: »

Because I've been told by people at the job centre and also from agencies that it's illegal to ask those questions (for the record I'm single and childless). It's weird cos it's none of their business... how do they know IF it will affect your work? Many people have kids and are as reliable and efficient as those who don't, yet it could go against you in your application... an employer may assume that someone with kids would take more time off.

It's illegal to ask how many kids you have? I seriously doubt it.

Heineken Helen wrote: »

It's not a conspiracy if it's there for all to see... it's just that on the one hand they tell you something is illegal, on the other hand they can ask it but in a different way. So if you put down that you've no stomach troubles, and suddenly you get a stomach bug, the employer may well be entitled to sack you for 'lying' on your application. Or if you DO say that you suffer from bad periods, is it then ok to call in sick once a month for a couple of days and say 'well I told you so'? I highly doubt it. On the other hand, if you do get it bad one time and have to call in sick, this may now become a sackable offence:rolleyes:

I pretty sure no employer can sack you for getting sick. If you put down you have no stomach problems then get a bug. You still don't have a stomach problem, just a temporary illness. All employer give you sick leave.

Heineken Helen wrote: »

The key words being 'if it would affect your work', I'm fine with them asking if you've a disability which would affect your work cos they DO need to know this... but if it's one that has never affected your work, why do they need to know about this? It may even be understandable ONCE you've got the job that they should know of any conditions in case of an emergency and they can say that's what you have... but why do they have the right to get such personal details on a job application? For the record again, I don't suffer from any of the conditions but it's simply embarrassing filling out the form, and I'd imagine even more so if you DO happen to suffer from diarrhoea:D

So where exactly do they ask you about bad periods? Which illnesses do they ask about?
How do you know they discriminate based on these illnesses?

And again where's the conspiracy?

Heineken Helen · 02-04-2009 4:25pm

King Mob wrote: »

It's illegal to ask how many kids you have? I seriously doubt it.

I pretty sure no employer can sack you for getting sick. If you put down you have no stomach problems then get a bug. You still don't have a stomach problem, just a temporary illness. All employer give you sick leave.
So where exactly do they ask you about bad periods? Which illnesses do they ask about?
How do you know they discriminate based on these illnesses?

And again where's the conspiracy?

I didn't say anything about a conspiracy... this thread is about the NWO... which I don't believe to be a conspiracy.

Here ya go... it's grounds for discrimination:

http://www.safeworkers.co.uk/job-interview-questions-should-not-be-asked.html

I will try to find a link to a similar form to the ones I've filled out. There were at least two that had a full list of conditions and you had to answer yes or no.. one was actually simply 'menstrual/period pain' under 'do you suffer from any of the following conditions?' and yes 'diarrhoea' WAS another one:D

And see, you don't know whether they discriminate based on them... but the point is, if they HAVE this information, it makes it easier for them to discriminate. I don't see how having to give that info protects the worker in any way? They may as well insist on a full medical.

http://jobsearch.about.com/od/salary/a/fired.htm

"Lying on a job application is grounds for dismissal at any time in the future and could cost you future unemployment benefits".

getz · 02-04-2009 4:33pm

Heineken Helen wrote: »

I do understand IF you're working with children or vulnerable people... of course... but many of them are just for normal office jobs. Why should I have to go to the police and PAY for a form to prove I'm telling the truth?

maybe the employer has a right to employ who he or she wants to do the work

Heineken Helen · 02-04-2009 4:42pm

getz wrote: »

maybe the employer has a right to employ who he or she wants to do the work

So they can be racist or sexist? Any form of discrimination is as bad as the other... and they're all illegal... and there's reasons they're illegal. Of course, an employer can employ who he/she wants... but it should only be on the basis of whether they're suitable for the job or not. These laws are there cos employers were abusing their rights.

King Mob · 02-04-2009 5:00pm

Heineken Helen wrote: »

I didn't say anything about a conspiracy... this thread is about the NWO... which I don't believe to be a conspiracy.

Then why post in a conspiracy theory forum?

Heineken Helen wrote: »

Here ya go... it's grounds for discrimination:

http://www.safeworkers.co.uk/job-interview-questions-should-not-be-asked.html

But not illegal.
If you feel it was the basis of discrimination there's lots of channels to go through.

Heineken Helen wrote: »

I will try to find a link to a similar form to the ones I've filled out. There were at least two that had a full list of conditions and you had to answer yes or no.. one was actually simply 'menstrual/period pain' under 'do you suffer from any of the following conditions?' and yes 'diarrhoea' WAS another one:D

And? Was it relevant to the job? Why was it such a big deal?

Heineken Helen wrote: »

And see, you don't know whether they discriminate based on them... but the point is, if they HAVE this information, it makes it easier for them to discriminate. I don't see how having to give that info protects the worker in any way?

And the employers have no rights?
If the applicant doesn't want to give the information the employer asks for they don't have to apply.

Heineken Helen wrote: »

They may as well insist on a full medical.

Yea some might but not everyone.

"Lying on a job application is grounds for dismissal at any time in the future and could cost you future unemployment benefits".[/QUOTE]

DubTony · 03-04-2009 12:38am

Heineken Helen wrote: »

Hence the reason I didn't reply. Since a continuation of explaining why would possibly result in a banning.

How about this... I'm applying for jobs at the mo... MANY of the jobs I've seen advertised require a full enhanced police check... I can understand if it were working with kids or something, which some of them are, but some are just simple admin jobs. Perhaps that's being done at home too since it's been a long time since I was looking for jobs in Dublin? Also, most of them, when you apply ask you to fill out an 'equal opportunities' form... which means that, in order to prove they don't discriminate, you have to give them ALL your details which it used to be illegal to even ASK about:eek: kinda defeats the point if you ask me... I will find a link to back this up. Here's a few random jobs requiring CRB checks:

It seems very strange to me that a job applicant temping on £7 or £8 an hour should need that type of police clearance. Clearly these employers have put the onus on the employee to prove that they are "clean" and while that's not necessarily a bad thing it is contradictory to the "innocent until proven guilty" standard that we generally live by.

In any application for a job, or indeed in an interview, is illegal to ask the following;

If a person has children.
Age. (Date of birth should only be asked if the candidate is obviously under 18 and only when a candidate confirms that he or she is under 18 can the date of birth be requested).
The marital status of an applicant.
Religion.
If an applicant has dependents (kids or parents).
Race or ethnic background.
Sexual persuasion.
Medical conditions (except to ask if the applicant has any serious medical conditions that could cause a danger to themselves or others, e.g. epilepsy in the case of a machine operator. A full medical can be required as a condition of a job offer but this must be paid for by the employer)

The only personal information an employer is entitled to is pretty much name and address. That's all standard in Irish law, things may have changed in the UK.

Equal Opportunities Form wrote:

This form will be separated from your application form and treated in the strictest confidence. The information you provide will be used for statistical purposes only and will not be used as part of the recruitment selection process. It is helpful if you complete all sections of the form.

While it is clearly states that the form is kept separate from the application, can an applicant be fully confident that it actually will be? The laws are there to ensure that equal opportunities are just that - equal. But these questionnaires make a mockery of the law. Now if there was some sort of American type affirmative action, I could understand, but asking for this information on the basis that it's for research purposes seems very very strange indeed when you consider that the job application and the Equal Opportunities Form are submitted together.

DubTony · 03-04-2009 12:55am

King Mob wrote: »

And the employers have no rights?
If the applicant doesn't want to give the information the employer asks for they don't have to apply.

When it comes to employers filling jobs they have no rights. They don't need them. The anti-discrimination laws are firmly on the side of the applicant as there is no way that an applicant can discriminate against a potential employer.

If "equal opportunity forms" became standard when applying for a job it would be easy for "bad" employers to discriminate against applicants. The laws are there to protect minorities, but if a person can't even get an interview based on something written on a form, he or she can never prove discrimination and so the form in itself is discriminatory. The fact that these forms exist at all means that the whole system is open to massive abuse, and makes the law irrelevant.

If I don't want to employ women who have kids, who's to know that I didn't use the equal opportunities form to weed out the "undesirables"?

King Mob · 03-04-2009 1:04am

DubTony wrote: »

When it comes to employers filling jobs they have no rights. They don't need them. The anti-discrimination laws are firmly on the side of the applicant as there is no way that an applicant can discriminate against a potential employer.

If "equal opportunity forms" became standard when applying for a job it would be easy for "bad" employers to discriminate against applicants. The laws are there to protect minorities, but if a person can't even get an interview based on something written on a form, he or she can never prove discrimination and so the form in itself is discriminatory. The fact that these forms exist at all means that the whole system is open to massive abuse, and makes the law irrelevant.

If I don't want to employ women who have kids, who's to know that I didn't use the equal opportunities form to weed out the "undesirables"?

Isn't that going against innocent till proven guilty?

Have you any evidence that equal oppertunity forms are being used to facilitate discrimination?

And again where's the conspiracy?

DubTony · 03-04-2009 1:17am

King Mob wrote: »

Isn't that going against innocent till proven guilty?

If you're referring to the bit about "weeding out "undesirables"", yes, I suppose it is going against that. That's the point.

Have you any evidence that equal oppertunity forms are being used to facilitate discrimination?

No. I've never seen one of these forms until tonight. The point being made is that the forms can be used to discriminate.

And again where's the conspiracy?

This thread is primarily about invasions of privacy.

King Mob · 03-04-2009 1:32am

DubTony wrote: »

If you're referring to the bit about "weeding out "undesirables"", yes, I suppose it is going against that. That's the point.

You seem to be assuming that employers are asking for this information for nefarious purposes.

DubTony wrote: »

No. I've never seen one of these forms until tonight. The point being made is that the forms can be used to discriminate.

They could also be used to identify dissenters for the NWO, but there's no evidence of that either.
Maybe just maybe they're being used for their intended purpose?

DubTony wrote: »

This thread is primarily about invasions of privacy.

But an employer asking personal questions isn't.
The employers ask for information they feel is appropriate to the vacancy. If you don't want to answer these questions you don't have to apply. And if you feel you've been discriminated against there's channels to go through.
Do some employers ask questions that are a bit personal? Yes.
Do some employers discriminate? Yes.
Do all employers do these things? No.
Do people overreact? Yes.

K-9 · 03-04-2009 1:49am

Feck all these laws. They are all introduced for an NWO.

Nothing to do with the likes of Catholic disadvantage within the civil service ETC. in NI?

A law that obviously was introduced to stop disadvantage is now being used to disadvantage?

Yeah?

Correct me if I'm wrong!

Heineken Helen · 03-04-2009 7:40am

King Mob wrote: »

You seem to be assuming that employers are asking for this information for nefarious purposes.

They could also be used to identify dissenters for the NWO, but there's no evidence of that either.
Maybe just maybe they're being used for their intended purpose?

But an employer asking personal questions isn't.
The employers ask for information they feel is appropriate to the vacancy. If you don't want to answer these questions you don't have to apply. And if you feel you've been discriminated against there's channels to go through.
Do some employers ask questions that are a bit personal? Yes.
Do some employers discriminate? Yes.
Do all employers do these things? No.
Do people overreact? Yes.

what about if I go into an interview and start asking the interviewer about his/her medical conditions or if he/she has any kids or disabilities. How would that be relevant to the job and how is it something I would need to know?

DubTony · 03-04-2009 8:33am

King Mob wrote: »

You seem to be assuming that employers are asking for this information for nefarious purposes.

They could also be used to identify dissenters for the NWO, but there's no evidence of that either.
Maybe just maybe they're being used for their intended purpose?

But an employer asking personal questions isn't.
The employers ask for information they feel is appropriate to the vacancy. If you don't want to answer these questions you don't have to apply. And if you feel you've been discriminated against there's channels to go through.
Do some employers ask questions that are a bit personal? Yes.
Do some employers discriminate? Yes.
Do all employers do these things? No.
Do people overreact? Yes.

I'll refer you to this provided by Helen http://www.safeworkers.co.uk/job-int...-be-asked.html

and to post number 118 in this thread.

Asking or requiring answers to these questions in a job application or interview IS ILLEGAL.

Heineken Helen · 03-04-2009 1:10pm

DubTony wrote: »

I'll refer you to this provided by Helen http://www.safeworkers.co.uk/job-int...-be-asked.html

and to post number 118 in this thread.

Asking or requiring answers to these questions in a job application or interview IS ILLEGAL.

Thank you... yet somehow they've found a loophole. So they can ask those illegal questions under the guise of anti-discrimination:rolleyes:

It always says that the form will not be used in the recruitment process yet, as you've said, you hand both forms in together to the same person. If they have little discriminations in their head, you've just given them all the answers so they can discriminate against you using the 'anti-discrimination' process :cool: It's almost laughable... only there's nothing funny about it.

So yes, putting that together with the original topic... that, along with the CRB check which SOME employers ask for, sometimes with no good reason (admittedly not all of them... but there's a significant number if you refer to the www.totaljobs.com website). People sometimes have to give up an invasive amount of information in order to simply APPLY for a job. If these forms were given to you upon commencement of your employment, that would be a different issue (something I'm still not happy with but it's still a different issue) but, sometimes simply to be CONSIDERED you have to disclose all that info.

Why do you need to have the police do a full check on you just to get a job working at a desk? The two seem entirely unrelated to me... specifically when you're NOT working with kids, elderly, vulnerable and sometimes have no contact with the public at all???????? It's highly suspicious

Heineken Helen · 03-04-2009 1:16pm

King Mob wrote: »

But an employer asking personal questions isn't.
The employers ask for information they feel is appropriate to the vacancy. If you don't want to answer these questions you don't have to apply. And if you feel you've been discriminated against there's channels to go through.
Do some employers ask questions that are a bit personal? Yes.
Do some employers discriminate? Yes.
Do all employers do these things? No.
Do people overreact? Yes.

Many of the examples I've given of personal questions asked are NOT appropriate to the vacancy. I know I don't have to apply if I don't want to answer the questions but I have no negative answers to those questions so I do answer... IF, however, I DID suffer from diarrhoea the odd time... I fail to see why the hell my employer would need/want to know about that. Or if I have psoriasis or eczema it would either be obvious or it wouldn't be. If it's not obvious, why is it any of their business?

I know not all employers do these things... I've never claimed that. But employers are using the recession to conduct recruitment processes that aren't exactly legal... and I just think it's quite disgusting... cos they know people NEED work... and people will do anything to get that job. And employers know this.

humanji · 03-04-2009 1:38pm

To be fair, psoriasis and eczema can make a candidate unsuitable for certain occupations for example, psoriasis can develope into psoriatic arthritis (I think something like a third of psoriasis sufferers get it). If this developes in the hands of a typist, it will imped their work. I don't see why an employer shouldn't be aware that someone they are hiring may not be physically up to doing the job. If you don't feel comfortable answering these questions, just ask the employer why they need to know.

Heineken Helen · 03-04-2009 2:09pm

humanji wrote: »

To be fair, psoriasis and eczema can make a candidate unsuitable for certain occupations for example, psoriasis can develope into psoriatic arthritis (I think something like a third of psoriasis sufferers get it). If this developes in the hands of a typist, it will imped their work. I don't see why an employer shouldn't be aware that someone they are hiring may not be physically up to doing the job. If you don't feel comfortable answering these questions, just ask the employer why they need to know.

It's a double edged sword... if I ask them why they need to know they'll just presume I have 'all of the above'.

Point taken on psoriasis BUT it only CAN develop into arthritis but not guaranteed? So why not hire them on the basis of something that MAY or may NOT happen? In fairness something may or may not happen any of us regardless of what info we have to our knowledge upon applying. There are many things that can lead to arthritis. That person may never get arthritis and could be typing at 90 wpm into their hundreds:D an employer can't foresee that, can they?

Undergod · 03-04-2009 2:53pm

No, they can't, but in situations like this, business works on likelihoods. It's more likely for someone to get arthritis if they have psoriasis. Doesn't mean they will get it, but it makes more sense in a business setting to hire someone with the same qualifications who doesn't have this condition, or any condition that increases the chance they will develop something that impairs their ability to work well.

Heineken Helen · 03-04-2009 3:16pm

Undergod wrote: »

No, they can't, but in situations like this, business works on likelihoods. It's more likely for someone to get arthritis if they have psoriasis. Doesn't mean they will get it, but it makes more sense in a business setting to hire someone with the same qualifications who doesn't have this condition, or any condition that increases the chance they will develop something that impairs their ability to work well.

that's why it's illegal to discriminate against somebody with a disability... so why ask those questions if you're not going to use it for discriminatory purposes? I don't buy the talk that it's for their filing purposes.

If something impairs your ability to do the job, I believe you're obliged to inform them though. If it doesn't, it's not their right to know about it.

hkcharlie · 04-04-2009 7:31am

as populations grow they intermingle and the demographic broadens. This is the way of the world we live in and the once normal conventions become not normal for those stepping into a new society.

Britain is not the NWO test state! This feeling of them and us is as old as humanity.

Run_to_da_hills · 20-04-2009 9:18pm

Press account of recent UK Police activities.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1171748/LAUREN-BOOTH-Wake-smell-pepper-spray-These-3-609-new-laws-control-protect-us.html

robtri · 21-04-2009 7:55am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Press account of recent UK Police activities.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1171748/LAUREN-BOOTH-Wake-smell-pepper-spray-These-3-609-new-laws-control-protect-us.html

not sure why you posted this... considering this media is a controlled media...

anyway from the article??

"Yet let’s try to remember the last full-on riot in Britain that resulted from
a political rally – ah yes, the Poll Tax riots almost 20 years ago. "

where the other riots that have happened in the last 20 years at protests against government policy, not really full on riot, more just a few lads getting into mischief.... WTF is that quote about...

then it goes on to give out about poice wearing body armour and carrying pepper spray..... god forbid that these men and women protect themsleves...

Is Britain the NWO Test State?

Comments