Former chief of M15 accuses Labour of creating a Police State.

Run_to_da_hills

A former spy chief last night accused Labour of turning Britain into a 'police state' by cynically exploiting the public's fear of terrorism.

Dame Stella Rimington, the first female head of MI5, warned the Government was playing into the hands of extremists by eroding our civil liberties

Labour has brought in plans for microchipped ID cards, the proposed introduction of electronic border checks, the detention of terror suspects for 28 days without charge, control orders, and powers to stop and search individuals without reason.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/85071/We-re-creating-a-police-state-says-ex-spy-chief

metman

A police state? :rolleyes: This from the government who introduced plastic police, asbos, asdos, community punishment orders, curfews, community payback orders, electronic tagging....in fact a host of measures designed to make life easier for the criminally inclined and erode public confidence in the justice system and police.

Imagine, giving police powers to stop and search persons (under the Terrorism Act) in a country that has already been the target of dozens of terrorist plots, and has actually been attacked by suicide bombers on three occasions to date and is likely to suffer further such attacks.

Perhaps if those entrusted with the running of national security (that's includes you Stella) were more focused on doing their job, as opposed to getting their name in the paper and political meddling, the country would be a safer place all round.

TheNog

metman wrote: »

asbos, asdoas,

fixed that for ye

dont thank me

eroo

TheNog wrote: »

dont thank me

He just did!

A Former Chief of MI5 would never attempt to scrape their way into the spotlight by uttering sensationalist comments!

:rolleyes:

odinreln

metman wrote: »

A police state? :rolleyes:

Imagine, giving police powers to stop and search persons (under the Terrorism Act) in a country that has already been the target of dozens of terrorist plots,

yes a police state, no need for rolling of the eyes. there is a sharp erosion of civil liberties in the US and the UK. i have been to the uk often and the increase in police with machine guns is very apparent.

police should never have the power to stop and search people without a valid reason. they are SERVANTS of the PEOPLE. the fact that you are justifying the searches because they have had terrorist plots is ridiculous. free and democratic society does not mean, stop and search at the whim of a man with an automatic weapon. that's intimidation, and its the act of a police state.

metman

odinreln wrote: »

yes a police state, no need for rolling of the eyes. there is a sharp erosion of civil liberties in the US and the UK. i have been to the uk often and the increase in police with machine guns is very apparent.

police should never have the power to stop and search people without a valid reason. they are SERVANTS of the PEOPLE. the fact that you are justifying the searches because they have had terrorist plots is ridiculous. free and democratic society does not mean, stop and search at the whim of a man with an automatic weapon. that's intimidation, and its the act of a police state.

Oh pulease :rolleyes:

Where have you noticed an increase in big scary men with big scary guns? At the airport/central London/tourist sites per chance? All likely terrorist targets perhaps?

As regards stop and search, there is an entirely valid reason; the disruption of terrorist activity. Get a clue.

Oh and its been a little more than plots.

Imagine where we'd be if the bleeding heart liberals were running the show.

the_syco

metman wrote: »

Imagine where we'd be if the bleeding heart liberals were running the show.

Few Gardai would have any guns?

DublinWriter

eroo wrote: »

A Former Chief of MI5 would never attempt to scrape their way into the spotlight by uttering sensationalist comments!

...or by writing a sensationalist autobiography! (she must be trying to flog her book...again).

metman

The liberal tree-hugging types (who wouldn't entertain putting themselves in harms way for 10 times my paycheck) amuse me with their disdain for stop and search. Its criticised and labeled draconian because its intrusive....but more accurately because its highly effective.

odinreln

happyhappy wrote: »

example an airport and you saw someone who may have a weapon. you have got your way and police have no power to stop and search this person, what would you do?? ....your general arguement to a specific stiuation.

ok. i understand the police have to have powers. thats fine. thats the reason they exist, to have certain powers to use to help protect law abiding citizens. and the airport situation, with travel in planes, is a very specific situation, where more security with search powers is needed.

as a citizen, if i make the decision to travel, then i have to expect luggage to be scanned, and spot checks and all that. there is no problem there. if there is a suspicious character, posibility of a weapon, security must act.

if it spills out onto the general public. traveling in a car to another county, walking down the street, where people with no evidence against them, no suspicious activities, are being stopped searched, told what to do, and being treated as a criminal, then there is a problem.

Run_to_da_hills

UK Pubs clubs & restaurants ordered to fit CCTV or loose their license.

Again on topic and just days after Rimington words.

"Big Brother" style plans to force pubs to install CCTV cameras raise ‘serious privacy concerns’, the surveillance watchdog has warned.

Police are telling pubs, clubs, restaurants and off-licenses they will not support their licensing applications unless they agree to train the intrusive cameras on their customers.

Owners also have to promise to hand over to the police any CCTV footage requested.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-licences.html

youcrazyjesus!

metman wrote: »

A police state? :rolleyes: This from the government who introduced plastic police, asbos, asdos, community punishment orders, curfews, community payback orders, electronic tagging....in fact a host of measures designed to make life easier for the criminally inclined and erode public confidence in the justice system and police.

Imagine, giving police powers to stop and search persons (under the Terrorism Act) in a country that has already been the target of dozens of terrorist plots, and has actually been attacked by suicide bombers on three occasions to date and is likely to suffer further such attacks.

Perhaps if those entrusted with the running of national security (that's includes you Stella) were more focused on doing their job, as opposed to getting their name in the paper and political meddling, the country would be a safer place all round.

Christ Almighty, when even a former MI5 chief comes out and complains about the erosion of civil liberties people still scoff and roll their eyes in disbelief.

What do you need exactly?

Cow Moolester

Have to agree with RTDH... it's actually ridiculous. And there's people who are denying that this is eroding our liberties? Look no further than the EU directive that all countries must keep logs of people's internet usage, texts etc. or the directive allowing police to search your computer without a warrant

Esel

DublinWriter wrote: »

...or by writing a sensationalist autobiography! (she must be trying to flog her book...again).

Jealous much?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

UK Pubs clubs & restaurants ordered to fit CCTV or loose their license.

Again on topic.....

On topic in the CT forum, maybe.

metman

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Christ Almighty, when even a former MI5 chief comes out and complains about the erosion of civil liberties people still scoff and roll their eyes in disbelief.

What do you need exactly?

People with personal agendas, a la Remington, not talking b*llocks would be a good start....but as its late and I've just finished a hard day oppressing the good citizens of ze Police State, I'll have to come back to you with my complete list.

Until then, as you were.

youcrazyjesus!

metman wrote: »

People with personal agendas, a la Remington, not talking b*llocks would be a good start....but as its late and I've just finished a hard day oppressing the good citizens of ze Police State, I'll have to come back to you with my complete list.

Until then, as you were.

That's nonsense, there are 6 billion people with "personal agendas" on the planet today. I'm actually a fan of Road Wars and would be very supportive of the police getting the tools (legally and literally) they need to do their job so spare me the rolling eyes brushaway. She isn't the first head of MI5 to speak about civil liberties being eroded, it might interest you to know.

The fact is civil liberties are being eroded, in big ways and small. That's not a criticism of you personally or your job although you seem to take it that way, which is quite silly. I personally don't care about my electronic records, such things as internet history and mobile phone records. There is no such thing as privacy with anything you do online anyway. But in real life; heavily diluting fundamental rights of suspects, extending periods of detention to god knows how long and dismantling the traditional legal process itself is quite worrying. When people are being arrested under anti-terrorism laws when they clearly have no connection to terrorism it is wrong. When the Government is looking for detention periods when not even MI5 believe it is worth extending you have to ask why?

Examples:

Wasn't Damian Green, a Tory MP, arrested by anti-terrorist officers.

"Anti-terrorism" officers sprinting around Parliament buildings arresting MPs for knowing something is very worrying.

Here is another example:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/30/student_arrested_downloading_book/


It's these things that worry people, if not the "misunderstandings" now, it's the potential for abuse in the future. We have had warning shots already, the Iraq War for example, in the run up to it it's plainly obvious how the intelligence agencies can be manipulated by an individual and his cronies. We had tanks at Heathrow Airport ffs!

metman

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

But in real life; heavily diluting fundamental rights of suspects

I deal with suspects every day. They have no less legal protection today than they had 5 years ago when I took up my current post. Heavily diluting.....rubbish. In our criminal justice system the suspect is afforded more protection than the victim. This is what's really wrong with the system.

extending periods of detention to god knows how long and dismantling the traditional legal process itself is quite worrying.

Detention periods have been extended on account of the complexity of international counter-terror investigations.

Wasn't Damian Green, a Tory MP, arrested by anti-terrorist officers.

"Anti-terrorism" officers sprinting around Parliament buildings arresting MPs for knowing something is very worrying.

There was an allegation made he was leaking official documents that were subject to the official secrets act, thus committing a criminal offence. The police have a duty to investigate in such circumstances and he was arrested. Had he been a minor civil servant no one would have even noticed. Instead because he's a politician, other politicians cry foul and scream bloody murder. I'd be more concerned about some people thinking they're above the law than the police investigating an allegation of misconduct in a political office.

It's these things that worry people, if not the "misunderstandings" now, it's the potential for abuse in the future. We have had warning shots already, the Iraq War for example, in the run up to it it's plainly obvious how the intelligence agencies can be manipulated by an individual and his cronies. We had tanks at Heathrow Airport ffs!

What's genuinely worrying is people not seeing the wood for the trees. You go and tell the families who lost loved ones on the 7th July 2005 that the measures currently in place to combat terrorism deprive people of their human rights. See what type of reception you get.

Eru

In Brazil if you run from the police you get shot crime or no crime.

In America any person can shoot to kill for trespassing on any land, owned by the shooter or not.

In Spain you can be detained for 3 years without trial.

In Iran homosexuality is a hangable offence.

In Zimbabwe being white allows for seizure by force of your property in the public interest.

In Thailand you must 'earn' your basic food while in prison by working.

In Texas you sleep in a tent when in jail.

In Italy and most european countries you MUST carry an ID card at all times and can be arrested for failing or refusing to produce it on request, no reason required.

In China its an offence to practice certain religions.




When even some of these restrictions are placed on Irish and UK residents, then start complaining

chem

Eru wrote: »

In Brazil if you run from the police you get shot crime or no crime.

In America any person can shoot to kill for trespassing on any land, owned by the shooter or not.

In Spain you can be detained for 3 years without trial.

In Iran homosexuality is a hangable offence.

In Zimbabwe being white allows for seizure by force of your property in the public interest.

In Thailand you must 'earn' your basic food while in prison by working.

In Texas you sleep in a tent when in jail.

In Italy and most european countries you MUST carry an ID card at all times and can be arrested for failing or refusing to produce it on request, no reason required.

In China its an offence to practice certain religions.




When even some of these restrictions are placed on Irish and UK residents, then start complaining

Show me one law passed in the last 10 years that have granted people more freedoms. UK used anti terror laws to freeze Icelands banks. It goes to show that anti terror laws can be used to fit anything the government likes. Licenced Handguns are to be banned here to try stop criminal killing each other with imported handguns?? Am I missing somthing?

chem

metman wrote: »

There was an allegation made he was leaking official documents that were subject to the official secrets act, thus committing a criminal offence. The police have a duty to investigate in such circumstances and he was arrested. Had he been a minor civil servant no one would have even noticed. Instead because he's a politician, other politicians cry foul and scream bloody murder. I'd be more concerned about some people thinking they're above the law than the police investigating an allegation of misconduct in a political office.



What's genuinely worrying is people not seeing the wood for the trees. You go and tell the families who lost loved ones on the 7th July 2005 that the measures currently in place to combat terrorism deprive people of their human rights. See what type of reception you get.

Eh, the police went in without a warrent to search??? Page one of how to search a building Have a search warrent!!!

Eru

chem wrote: »

Show me one law passed in the last 10 years that have granted people more freedoms. UK used anti terror laws to freeze Icelands banks. It goes to show that anti terror laws can be used to fit anything the government likes. Licenced Handguns are to be banned here to try stop criminal killing each other with imported handguns?? Am I missing somthing?

chem wrote: »

Eh, the police went in without a warrent to search??? Page one of how to search a building Have a search warrent!!!

I submit to your superior knowledge of Criminal Law, superior knowledge of police proceedure and above all else, the amazing way in which you put your view across.

Or to put it another way, you have had your 5 minutes and failed to use it sensible by providing any evidence to support your claims so your going on ignore, bye bye.

chem

Eru wrote: »

I submit to your superior knowledge of Criminal Law, superior knowledge of police proceedure and above all else, the amazing way in which you put your view across.

Or to put it another way, you have had your 5 minutes and failed to use it sensible by providing any evidence to support your claims so your going on ignore, bye bye.

If you cant understand it,its not your falt. Just use nightclub bouncer style argument and say "Not tonight" and blank out the person trying to talk;)

metman

chem wrote: »

Eh, the police went in without a warrent to search??? Page one of how to search a building Have a search warrent!!!

Its spelled warrant.

And where consent is given a warrant is not required, as was the case here. What's your point?

youcrazyjesus!

There was an allegation made he was leaking official documents that were subject to the official secrets act, thus committing a criminal offence. The police have a duty to investigate in such circumstances and he was arrested. Had he been a minor civil servant no one would have even noticed. Instead because he's a politician, other politicians cry foul and scream bloody murder. I'd be more concerned about some people thinking they're above the law than the police investigating an allegation of misconduct in a political office.

You've ignored the point. I'll put it in bold this time. It's the fact that anti-terrorism police were arrresting a Tory MP in Parliament. You've also ignored the point made about the Icelandic banks which were nationalised under anti-terror legislation.

Is this acceptable? Were Tory MPs and Icelandic banks at the top of the list of anti-terror targets when the laws were drawn up?

This is the thin end of the wedge, and terrorism laws have been used to prevent peaceful protests from happening and arrest peaceful protestors. And to prevent such sinister activities as trainspotting. The police aren't always 100% in the right and there are many instances of them acting bizarrely and heavy handidly when dealing even with caucasian pensioners.

What's genuinely worrying is people not seeing the wood for the trees. You go and tell the families who lost loved ones on the 7th July 2005 that the measures currently in place to combat terrorism deprive people of their human rights. See what type of reception you get.

Yeah sure, you're 100% right on every subject. But you wonder how the British police dealt with the IRA, oh wait...

I'm actually very pro law and order, can't stand a lot of what passes for justice these days in sentencing. But on the other hand that doesn't mean I blindly argue that the policing and justice system are simply 100% fight on every subject. The blame for this lies with legislators but you seem to be taking it personally. I've a big problem with the authoritarian nature of "New Labour" and the culture they bring. They are control freaks and a disgrace.

youcrazyjesus!

Eru wrote: »

In Brazil if you run from the police you get shot crime or no crime.

In America any person can shoot to kill for trespassing on any land, owned by the shooter or not.

In Spain you can be detained for 3 years without trial.

In Iran homosexuality is a hangable offence.

In Zimbabwe being white allows for seizure by force of your property in the public interest.

In Thailand you must 'earn' your basic food while in prison by working.

In Texas you sleep in a tent when in jail.

In Italy and most european countries you MUST carry an ID card at all times and can be arrested for failing or refusing to produce it on request, no reason required.

In China its an offence to practice certain religions.




When even some of these restrictions are placed on Irish and UK residents, then start complaining

When you start having to look at China, Texas, Zimbabwe and Iran for worse examples of injustice you're in trouble.

We don't live in Iran or Zimbabwe. That's a very silly argument.

metman

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

It's the fact that anti-terrorism police were arrresting a Tory MP in Parliament. You've also ignored the point made about the Icelandic banks which were nationalised under anti-terror legislation.

Anti-terrorist police are simply police. They don't have any additional powers and are not some super secret police. The reason ANTI-TERRORISM POLICE dealt with this incident was due to it coming within the remit of national security. Who else would you suggest investigates the leaking of official documents in breach of the official secrets act at Parliament....the traffic department? :rolleyes:

And Icelandic banks? Is that the best example of how your civil liberties are being eroded? Won't someone please think of the children!

And to prevent such sinister activities as trainspotting. The police aren't always 100% in the right and there are many instances of them acting bizarrely and heavy handidly when dealing even with caucasian pensioners.

Can you provide us with some of these 'many instances?'

Yeah sure, you're 100% right on every subject. But you wonder how the British police dealt with the IRA, oh wait...

No I don't wonder actually, you seem to have raised the issue in some sad attempt to garner support as your posts are clearly flawed and mostly inane.

I'm actually very pro law and order, can't stand a lot of what passes for justice these days in sentencing. But on the other hand that doesn't mean I blindly argue that the policing and justice system are simply 100% fight on every subject.

I completely agree with you.

Locamon

Eru wrote: »

In Brazil if you run from the police you get shot crime or no crime.

In America any person can shoot to kill for trespassing on any land, owned by the shooter or not.

In Spain you can be detained for 3 years without trial.

In Iran homosexuality is a hangable offence.

In Zimbabwe being white allows for seizure by force of your property in the public interest.

In Thailand you must 'earn' your basic food while in prison by working.

In Texas you sleep in a tent when in jail.

In Italy and most european countries you MUST carry an ID card at all times and can be arrested for failing or refusing to produce it on request, no reason required.

In China its an offence to practice certain religions.




When even some of these restrictions are placed on Irish and UK residents, then start complaining

Is this here in poor taste -in the UK if you're Brazilian they shoot you if you are running to catch the train?
In the UK they can hold you for four months without charge, think how many false confessions Guildford four type suspects might have given up in that time.
In the UK being a terrorist suspect allows them to shoot you by accident without any repercussions which has happened twice already. Once is too much! Police state powers create a police state approach.
All these powers make sense when you think of the guilty but imagine how you would feel if these laws were applied to you in error and it happens all the time. That's why there is a legal system to protect all.
When the ex head of M15 says they are going in the wrong direction you know you have a problem.
Lastly just because there are injustices all over the world doesn't mean people here and in the UK should have to put up with the same.

Eru

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You've ignored the point. I'll put it in bold this time. It's the fact that anti-terrorism police were arrresting a Tory MP in Parliament. You've also ignored the point made about the Icelandic banks which were nationalised under anti-terror legislation.

Is this acceptable? Were Tory MPs and Icelandic banks at the top of the list of anti-terror targets when the laws were drawn up?

So they should be ignored? Ignore all crime and criminals unless they are major cases commited by international criminals? Crime is crime is crime and the police deal with it all regardless of what people hold to be worthy of attention or not but me thinks your opinioin would change the second you became the victim of a 'worthless' crime. The line has been drawn, just not where you wanted it.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

This is the thin end of the wedge, and terrorism laws have been used to prevent peaceful protests from happening and arrest peaceful protestors. And to prevent such sinister activities as trainspotting. The police aren't always 100% in the right and there are many instances of them acting bizarrely and heavy handidly when dealing even with caucasian pensioners.

Hmmmm, based on that arguement we should remove all police powers and let people do as they please provided YOU think its ok because YOU think certain powers have been misused by certain police officers.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Yeah sure, you're 100% right on every subject. But you wonder how the British police dealt with the IRA, oh wait....

I certainly fail to see the point here, seems your attempting to suggest something sinister on the part of the police against people that blow up women and children.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I'm actually very pro law and order, can't stand a lot of what passes for justice these days in sentencing. But on the other hand that doesn't mean I blindly argue that the policing and justice system are simply 100% fight on every subject. The blame for this lies with legislators but you seem to be taking it personally. I've a big problem with the authoritarian nature of "New Labour" and the culture they bring. They are control freaks and a disgrace.

Control freaks because they introduced terrorism laws and the police arrested a person on suspicion of treason? Are you for real? The only person that appears to be taking this personally is you.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

When you start having to look at China, Texas, Zimbabwe and Iran for worse examples of injustice you're in trouble.

We don't live in Iran or Zimbabwe. That's a very silly argument.

Im pointing out that compared to the global stage Ireland and the UK are in fact very liberal in their justice and social systems. Prove me wrong by showing how our laws greatly extend beyond that of other nations.

Locamon wrote: »

Is this here in poor taste -in the UK if you're Brazilian they shoot you if you are running to catch the train?

Nope and I wont go into detail because you as well as everyone else know thats not the case, its what your attempting to say happened to prove a flawed point.

Locamon wrote: »

In the UK they can hold you for four months without charge, think how many false confessions Guildford four type suspects might have given up in that time.

As per above, to ensure no innocent person is ever ever arrested again disband the police and abolish all criminal law otherwise people will be arrested and questioned based on evidence to hand. Doesnt mean they are guilty just means they are suspected of commiting a crime. If you believe criminals hand themselves in and admit their guilt 100% (try even 1%) your living in a world I would love to visit. Anywhere near reality?

Locamon wrote: »

In the UK being a terrorist suspect allows them to shoot you by accident without any repercussions which has happened twice already.

sorry but is this not directly contradicting your own statements AGAINST false imprisonment and harsh tactics? The criminal justice system is the criminal justice system or are police not entitled to a presumption of innocence and any of the other rights were supposedly removing?

Locamon wrote: »

All these powers make sense when you think of the guilty but imagine how you would feel if these laws were applied to you in error and it happens all the time.

Theres no errors, the law applies to everyone or is this the crux of your arguement? That certain people should be exempt?

Locamon wrote: »

That's why there is a legal system to protect all.

So now you do agree that everyone is subject to law including police officers who shooot a suspect?

Locamon wrote: »

When the ex head of M15 says they are going in the wrong direction you know you have a problem.

Ex head, no longer there now. Oh what a shocker, retired person writes a book and critiseses their replacement. Now there couldnt be any bias there could there? Or am I not getting into this 'believe everyones word' state of mind you have?

Locamon wrote: »

Lastly just because there are injustices all over the world doesn't mean people here and in the UK should have to put up with the same.

We dont. An injustice is looked into and if found that person is exonerated and with sufficient evidence, people are prosecuted using the criminal justice system your opposed to. As per above, compare Irish and UK law to that on a global stage. Were actually very liberal and have one of the highest standards of proof required as well as probable the most protections against injustice. Dont agree? Stop talking personal opinion which I dont believe is actually based on anything and produce proof based on law and fact not Indymedia.

youcrazyjesus!

To the above 2, I'm surprised at how myopic and partisan you are. For the record we are talking about politicians and legislation and is being created from it, not your jobs. You two are taking it personally, which is stupid, and seem like 2 people who would be quite unreasonable and unpleasant to deal with.

You both ignore the point about so called anti-terror legislation being used to harrass and arrest elderly trainspotting photographers, peaceful protestors, take over foreign banks, Tory MPs. When it's pointed out to you you both come out with the "it's a croime, taff lack son innit" nonsense. It actually proves the point of what concerned citizens are saying about new laws and civil liberties, which is not as you bizarrely seem to be insisting "don't investigate and stop crime", "there is no such thing as crime", "laws shouldn't exist", "the police who investigate Al Qaeda are sinister". I don't even know where to begin deconstructing such confused paranoia. But I'd strongly advise a long holiday or a even a long walk at the weekends with the dogs, seriously. Tinfoil hat paranoia.

Back to the point, there is a culture of authoritarianism being built up bit by bit by New Labour (it has changed a little bit now that Blair has finally left the stage to be fair), using overreaching laws that give the police and Government the right to trample over any citizen as they see fit.

I'll give you one more example of this type of nonsense which seems to becoming more and more prevalent:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1107342/MP-stopped-police-suspicion-terrorist--taking-photos-cycle-path.html?ITO=1490

Great, so anybody taking a photo within shouting distance of a train, bus or taxi rank can be arrested for terrorism. Another Tory MP put out of business by the thin blue line. I guess 99.99% of tourists are now terrorist suspects too. It's crazy in this day and age where there are more cameras out there than people.

It's almost impossible as a policeman to understand the nature of the police state. You're there to enforce the law, whatever that law says. Ironically it puts you in a position where you can't see the forest for the trees. The utter nonsense being posted here is proof of that.

Locamon

Eru wrote: »

We dont. An injustice is looked into and if found that person is exonerated and with sufficient evidence, people are prosecuted using the criminal justice system your opposed to. As per above, compare Irish and UK law to that on a global stage. Were actually very liberal and have one of the highest standards of proof required as well as probable the most protections against injustice. Dont agree? Stop talking personal opinion which I dont believe is actually based on anything and produce proof based on law and fact not Indymedia.

Half of what you say is a direct contradiction of the other half of your argument.
An injustice is looked into? So four months in prison without trial for the innocent is fine.
Hard to look into your case and provide a remedy when you are dead.
Not based on anything? I have pointed out two cases where people have died because of the police approach in the UK. Can you point out a case where someone has been held for 4 months and convicted on evidence they couldn't have produced in the first 48 hours of detention.

I always find it interesting that the shoot everyone brigade are happy not to discuss the cases where it goes wrong but demand full rights for the police involved. Why were they not held for four months without trial, at least in their case there was clear evidence. Even after the legal system you glorify brought in verdicts of wrongful shooting you feel no punishment is necessary.

Locamon

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

To the above 2, I'm surprised at how myopic and partisan you are. For the record we are talking about politicians and legislation and is being created from it, not your jobs. You two are taking it personally, which is stupid, and seem like 2 people who would be quite unreasonable and unpleasant to deal with.

Oh..I thought I was being quite reasonable but hard not to get hot under the collar when people feel locking someone up without trial for extended periods is okay.

Will read another thread to widen my myopia...:o

youcrazyjesus!

Sorry I was talking about Metman and Eru, not yourself.

youcrazyjesus!

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I'll give you one more example of this type of nonsense which seems to becoming more and more prevalent:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1107342/MP-stopped-police-suspicion-terrorist--taking-photos-cycle-path.html?ITO=1490

Great, so anybody taking a photo within shouting distance of a train, bus or taxi rank can be arrested for terrorism. Another Tory MP put out of business by the thin blue line. I guess 99.99% of tourists are now terrorist suspects too. It's crazy in this day and age where there are more cameras out there than people.

That was actually a good story to highlight as the MP who was stopped was happy to see the police using the stop and search powers.

Mr Pelling has, however, taken a positive approach to the police's decision to search him over the cycle path pictures.

He told the Croydon Guardian last night: 'It is pleasing to see just how vigilant our police are at these times of heightened international political tension and the risk of terrorism here at home.

'I am glad my stop-and-search account as a white, middle-aged male shows that anyone can be suspected of, and questioned about, terrorism, regardless of race, creed or colour.'

A police source said: 'An MP is still a member of the public and if we feel someone is acting suspiciously then we will stop and search them. Nobody is immune, whether they show a pass to the House of Commons or not.'

What I think ERU and Metman are trying to say, Lads correct me if i'm wrong here, is that the law is there to be used if needs be, there are certain offences which fall under the category of terrorist offences like here you will be arrested under the Offences against the State Act for being in possession of a handgun. This is the same Act which deals with terrorist offences.

And if you feel that you were hard done by then complain. Thats why the ombudsman is there.

youcrazyjesus!, you mentioned earlier on about the Anti-Terror laws being used to prevent peaceful protests. I assume you mean in London outside Downing Street and Parliment Square? If so, then unless things have changed you just need to book your protest in these areas. All other areas are fine to protest. Maybe Metman can confirm if this is still the case.

parsi

foreign wrote: »

youcrazyjesus!, you mentioned earlier on about the Anti-Terror laws being used to prevent peaceful protests. I assume you mean in London outside Downing Street and Parliment Square? If so, then unless things have changed you just need to book your protest in these areas. All other areas are fine to protest. Maybe Metman can confirm if this is still the case.

Does (did) the GRA & AGSI have to book tomorrow's demo in Dublin ?

parsi

parsi wrote: »

Does (did) the GRA & AGSI have to book tomorrow's demo in Dublin ?

Todays demo was actually organised by The Congress of Trade Unions not the Garda Representative Bodies.
However, anybody can protest against whatever they want here, just look at the Love Ulster rally.

I personally think that you should be able to protest when and where you want too but I think the problem with the areas of London that I mentioned was that you could go down there on any given day and there may be multiple protests taking place, so maybe this was a way for the Met to have a bit of order to the protests. Again, I may be wrong on this because it was a few years since it was introduced.

Eru

parsi wrote: »

Does (did) the GRA & AGSI have to book tomorrow's demo in Dublin ?

Ireland is not within the UK, you are aware of this arent you? And yes, the marches were discussed as it allows for the protest to go on without induly interfering with passersby and people that are using their right to free movement. Gardai policing a protest isnt about watching 'them' and waiting for a chance to stop the protest, far from it in fact. We are there to help it run smoothly and without any problems / confrontations between protestors and second parties.

foreign wrote: »

What I think ERU and Metman are trying to say, Lads correct me if i'm wrong here, is that the law is there to be used if needs be, there are certain offences which fall under the category of terrorist offences like here you will be arrested under the Offences against the State Act for being in possession of a handgun. This is the same Act which deals with terrorist offences.

Yes and no. Im also trying to point out that everyone thats arrested is innocent until they are found guilty by a Judge and Jury not by the police. There is no way that the police can arrest only 'guilty' people as the police perform their tasks prior to this function.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

To the above 2, I'm surprised at how myopic and partisan you are. For the record we are talking about politicians and legislation and is being created from it, not your jobs. You two are taking it personally, which is stupid, and seem like 2 people who would be quite unreasonable and unpleasant to deal with.

Actually thats quite offensive personally and professionaly. For the record, your the one seperating 'citizens' from 'police officers' not us. Were applying the same rules to all.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You both ignore the point about so called anti-terror legislation being used to harrass and arrest elderly trainspotting photographers, peaceful protestors, take over foreign banks, Tory MPs. When it's pointed out to you you both come out with the "it's a croime, taff lack son innit" nonsense. It actually proves the point of what concerned citizens are saying about new laws and civil liberties, which is not as you bizarrely seem to be insisting "don't investigate and stop crime", "there is no such thing as crime", "laws shouldn't exist", "the police who investigate Al Qaeda are sinister". I don't even know where to begin deconstructing such confused paranoia. But I'd strongly advise a long holiday or a even a long walk at the weekends with the dogs, seriously. Tinfoil hat paranoia.

Its A or B, investigating suspicious behaviour does not mean said person acting in that way is a criminal just as not everyone thats arrested is a criminal or guilty. Its A or B. You have a simplistic view of how the world works.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Back to the point, there is a culture of authoritarianism being built up bit by bit by New Labour (it has changed a little bit now that Blair has finally left the stage to be fair), using overreaching laws that give the police and Government the right to trample over any citizen as they see fit.

Well you know how to use your rights as a voter then dont you? Just as every other adult does.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Great, so anybody taking a photo within shouting distance of a train, bus or taxi rank can be arrested for terrorism. Another Tory MP put out of business by the thin blue line. I guess 99.99% of tourists are now terrorist suspects too. It's crazy in this day and age where there are more cameras out there than people.

Actually the Mp praised the actions because he understands how the world really works and yes, anybody taking photos of sensitive areas can be arrested under terrorism laws. The alternative is to abolish the law therefore meaning that actual terrorists can work away scot free.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

It's almost impossible as a policeman to understand the nature of the police state. You're there to enforce the law, whatever that law says. Ironically it puts you in a position where you can't see the forest for the trees. The utter nonsense being posted here is proof of that.

Yeah yeah yeah, yawn.

Ruen

Quote:
Originally Posted by youcrazyjesus!
It's almost impossible as a policeman to understand the nature of the police state. You're there to enforce the law, whatever that law says. Ironically it puts you in a position where you can't see the forest for the trees. The utter nonsense being posted here is proof of that.

Eru wrote: »

Yeah yeah yeah, yawn.

That is a very juvenile response to a reasonable post.

It is true that if a law is passed as a Police Officer or Guard you have to enforce it regardless of your personal opinion on the rights or wrongs of that law.
I find the comments of serving Police on here bizarre in that they're taking some sort of personal offense from the fact that some people, disagree with Government creating a police state or even believe it's happening.
It's nothing against you, it's the Government and legislators that people are unhappy with here, as was said already you have no choice in the matter and have to enforce the law as it's written so get off your high horses and take a chill pill.