UK - Another step forward towards totalitarian police state?

MadsL

I'm old enough to remember the days when it wasn't a crime to listen to music in a field in the UK; For the youngsters;

Criminal Justice Act 1994 Sections 63, 64 & 65: Raves

These sections give the police the power to order people to leave the land if they're believed to be preparing to hold a rave ( 2 or more people); waiting for a rave to start (10+); actually attending a rave (10+). Ignoring this direction, or returning to the land within the next week, are both offences, liable to 3 months' imprisonment and/or a £2,500 fine.

Section 65 lets any uniformed constable who believes a person is on their way to a rave within a 5-mile radius to stop them and direct them away from the area - failure to comply can lead to a maximum fine of £1000.

So, in the years following the Miners strike UK police were given these new powers: (quick look using google timeline)

- Powers to enforce Civil law against Secondary Picketing
- Powers to act against old and New Age Travellers
- powers to end raves even on private land with permission and possible forfeiture of sound equipment
- powers to act against hunt sabs: aggravated trespass.
- removal of the lack of inference 'right to silance' - "If a suspect fails to tell the police of his defence to the charge, or fails to explain certain incriminating circumstances when called upon to do so, or refuses to testify in court, the court may draw such inferences as appear proper. "
- powers against squatters; squatters must leave within 24 hours, failing which they can go to prison for up to six months
- DNA orders; non-intimate samples may be taken from anyone charged with a recordable offence. Dangerous Driving for instance. In some circumstances the samples, and information derived from them, may be retained even though the suspect is not convicted of an offence.
- powers of stop and search in anticipation of violence
- direct trespassers who intend to reside on land to leave if they have brought six vehicles onto the land (applies to common land)
- powers to sieze knives and replica guns
- youth curfews for 10 year and older who plead guilty to an offence
- police powers to round up truants
- powers to imprison the psycopathic
- new disorder powers
- introduction of ASBOs
- police designated alcohol disorder zones with extended powers.
- powers to disperse pub crowds
- power to hack into personal computers without a court warrant.
- power to fine for anti-social behaviour on trains
- new powers to intervene in cases of domestic violence.
- given the power to charge suspects themselves for all summary offences, (assault, threatening behaviour and attacking a police officer. ... )
- 16-hour curfews for non-convicted or held terrorist suspects
- on-the -spot powers to seize teenagers' iPods
- Four men alleged to have carried out an armed robbery at Heathrow went on trial in in an unprecedented case being heard without a jury (Criminal Justice Act 2003. )
- police powers to crack down on kerb crawling
- “Grounding orders” would give police sanctions against youths
- Police get powers over 'dispersal zones': police have the authority to ask groups of two or more people to leave the area if they are being antisocial or look likely to cause trouble ...
- Section 30 dispersal order: power to move on groups of two or more people.
- police given powers to confiscate alcohol
- Police in England and Wales are to be given new powers from today to deal with gangs -laws will allow police to ban someone from meeting groups of other people going into rival gang areas or wearing clothes that are associated with a certain group ...
- new powers to name and shame extremists blocked from entering Britain and to share their details with other countries
- the power to seize cars from driveways or garages if owners do not have insurance
- new powers to allow Police to search people for knives and guns without reasonable suspicion
- powers of surveillance of the homes of people suspected of possessing and using firearms.
- random stop and search powers
- 14 day detention for suspected terrorists




And now; a few current headlines.

The Government will consider giving the police new powers including banning face coverings.

Police are to be granted new powers making it easier for them to carry out drug tests on arrest.

Home Secretary Theresa May raised the prospect of new powers to ban known hooligans from attending rallies and marches.

Senior officers are pushing for a change of law to allow officers to suspend a driver’s driving licence if police consider them to be unsafe.

Ministers and the security services are planning draconian powers to shut down or disrupt mobile phone messaging services and social networks in times of civil disorder.

______




So, enough already?? Or do Britons just want a Govt "tough on crime". My sister-in-law was ranting for martial law on Facebook the other day :rolleyes:

sarumite

and I am old enough to know that going around looting, rioting and destroying other peoples property is wrong. Serioulsy do not understand how people keep blaming the police for what these yobs were doing.

MadsL

Serioulsy do not understand how people keep blaming the police for what these yobs were doing.

Err.. this isn't a UK Riots thread - there's one over there ^


I'm asking about the upward spiral of police power in the UK, it's been steadily becoming more draconian over the past 30 years. Would we accept trial without jury here for instance?

sarumite

MadsL wrote: »

Err.. this isn't a UK Riots thread - there's one over there ^


I'm asking about the upward spirial of police power in the UK, it's been steadily becoming more draconian over the past 30 years. Would we accept trail without jury here for instance?

Even if I were to accept that this thread is not related to the UK riots, the simple fact that they occured for 4 nights in a row would suggest that the laws are not draconian enough.

As to accepting a trial without jury; if we were told that there was a very serious risk of jury tampering I think we probably would.

Liam Byrne

MadsL wrote: »

Serioulsy do not understand how people keep blaming the police for what these yobs were doing.

Err.. this isn't a UK Riots thread - there's one over there ^


I'm asking about the upward spirial of police power in the UK, it's been steadily becoming more draconian over the past 30 years. Would we accept trail without jury here for instance?

In return for a decent quality of life with less crime and vandalism? Absolutely!

RMD

MadsL wrote: »

Err.. this isn't a UK Riots thread - there's one over there ^


I'm asking about the upward spirial of police power in the UK, it's been steadily becoming more draconian over the past 30 years. Would we accept trail without jury here for instance?

We do have trial without jury here. It's called the special criminal court. If you consider the UK anywhere near a totalitarian police state I suggest you look into the well known former police states, no comparison can be made.

nesf

MadsL wrote: »

Would we accept trail without jury here for instance?

We already do have that in this country with the Special Criminals Court. And I hasten to add we have not had much in the way of problems with it and it has worked fairly well.

MadsL

RMD wrote: »

We do have trial without jury here. It's called the special criminal court. If you consider the UK anywhere near a totalitarian police state I suggest you look into the well known former police states, no comparison can be made.

Which states did you have in mind?

RMD

MadsL wrote: »

Which states did you have in mind?

Essentially any of the former Communist police states, Russia, East Germany, Bulgaria and Romania being the most notorious. No comparison can be made.

tails_naf

sarumite wrote: »

Even if I were to accept that this thread is not related to the UK riots, the simple fact that they occured for 4 nights in a row would suggest that the laws are not draconian enough.

As to accepting a trial without jury; if we were told that there was a very serious risk of jury tampering I think we probably would.

You see, that's exactly what they want you to think.

It happens all the time - where a crime/riot/whatever happens that grabs the nations attention. The powers that be use this as an opportunity to grab more power, and dress it up as trying to prevent future occurances of that crime. Whether the law actually would prevent it or not does not matter, what matters is more power has been gotten and will stay permanently. Wash, rinse, repeat.

In fact, the stop and search 'power' that the police have was cited as a reason the youth were so disillusioned with the police and harbored deep resentment for them. But fixing that would reduce the powers they have, so of course that avenue is not explored.

Its Just like the patriot act in the US - Callously used the 911 attacks, and the mysterious anthrax attacks (that were never solved) on senators and congressmen to scare the bejesus out of the us - was a massive step towards a police state with the very broad powers it gave to us police/FBI/etc..

RMD

tails_naf wrote: »

In fact, the stop and search 'power' that the police have was cited as a reason the youth were so disillusioned with the police and harbored deep resentment for them. But fixing that would reduce the powers they have, so of course that avenue is not explored.

So what happens when the police have a strong suspicion a person is carrying a weapon / drugs / stolen property if they can't search them? The stop and search power was brought in due to knife crime and heavy drug dealing, remove that power and you make life much easier for criminals.

MadsL

East Germany?

You think German police have greater powers than the UK?!

Police powers to use terror laws to stop and search people without grounds for suspicion are illegal, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled. The Strasbourg court has been hearing a case involving two people stopped near an arms fair in London in 2003.

British police powers toughest in Europe

Incidentally if you can make any inference from CCTV stats
The statistics of CCTV

MadsL

life much easier for criminals

So stop everybody doing everything. That will make life hard for criminals.

Did it occur to you that knife crime went up because police were stopping and searching people randomly and then reporting it as a 'knife crime' which the tabloids screamed about.

tails_naf

RMD wrote: »

Essentially any of the former Communist police states, Russia, East Germany, Bulgaria and Romania being the most notorious. No comparison can be made.

Ahh actually parallels can be drawn. In communist east germany, people often spied and reported on their neighbours to the police. Of course now it's more subtle - with ad campaigns in the uk encouraging people to report any behavior they might think is suspicious, no matter how small it may seem.

The key is subtlety. Bring in these laws not by force, but under the guise of protecting people.

Another example - police in the US have been abusing their powers - so what happens? It now is illegal (in some states) to record police, so citizens can't prove police abused their power - if a citizen claims abuse, and presented video proof, there have been cases where the citizen was the one that was charged! Does that sound unjust enough for you? When you have those measures in place, that is scary. Oh and why is it illegal to record police - why terrorism of course. The wonderful catch-all reason.

Note: it's not illegal in all states to record police, but people doing it are often still harassed, threatened with arrest, and most of the time capitulate, even though it's within their rights.

RMD

MadsL wrote: »

East Germany?

You think German police have greater powers than the UK?!



British police powers toughest in Europe

Incidentally if you can make any inference from CCTV stats
The statistics of CCTV

Notice how I said "former communist" states? Somewhat hinting at past tense since Germany is now unified and no longer Communist?

Germany is quite clearly not a police state, but 4 former communist states I mentioned were and that was my point, no comparison can be made between Britain and the well known police states.

MadsL wrote: »

So stop everybody doing everything. That will make life hard for criminals.

Did it occur to you that knife crime went up because police were stopping and searching people randomly and then reporting it as a 'knife crime' which the tabloids screamed about.

Oh please cut the "we're all going to be victims" crap. How many times have you been searched? I've been searched twice in my life, both times because I was out underage drinking. Have I been searched for no reason whatsoever just walking down the road? No, and I don't know any who has.

tails_naf

RMD wrote: »

So what happens when the police have a strong suspicion a person is carrying a weapon / drugs / stolen property if they can't search them? The stop and search power was brought in due to knife crime and heavy drug dealing, remove that power and you make life much easier for criminals.

And it's being abused left right and center. One guy interviewed on TV last night said he was stopped over 30 times in a month, and 3 times in one day. How would you feel if you were in his shoes - would you really respect/like the police who stopped and searched you like that.

In the old days, people were caught commiting crimes, or evidence was used to convict - this 'crime prevention', that by and large don't work, are easily bypassed by the real criminals anyway. Too much like the pre-crime theme in minority report methinks.

MadsL

Lets be clear. It is your position that Russia, Bulgaria and Romania are currently police states. Yes?

RMD

MadsL wrote: »

Lets be clear. It is your position that Russia, Bulgaria and Romania are currently police states. Yes?

No it is not. I've clearly stated twice to you now, bolded once that I said "former communist states", I never once said the current states. They are not police states in their current forms, but neither is the UK nor is the USA.

If you live in the UK / USA and go about your daily business in a lawful manner you're not going to attract attention from the police and you wont be subject to any of these stop and searches you seem to be so fearful of. While in the 4 former communist states I mentioned, even if you lived your daily life in a lawful pro-communist fashion, you still lived in fear of the secret police / state security services considering you even the slightest threat to the state, resulting in imprisonment on the smallest of charges. That is what a police state is.

Chuck Stone

Every time a law is passed to control behaviour it is a law for everyone not just for those who break it for personal gain.

MadsL

Thank you. Now you are clear.

I might point you at the title of this thread. I never said the UK was a police state - only that it was taking steps to get there.

14 days detention without trial for example (with pushes for 28 days)

I find it interesting that those who see nothing wrong with stringent police powers always trot out the 'keep you nose clean and you have nothing to worry about' line.

Let's see what happens if you live a quiet life in the UK;

Derry police apologise for marriage blunder

A Bristol man was arrested after he took a photo of a police officer who had ignored a no entry road sign.

Police apologise over CCTV in Muslim areas

Transport police apologise to two 'Middle Eastern' men seized on train

Civil liberties group demand police apology over treatment of teenage photographer

'You can't just go round taking photos'

nesf

MadsL wrote: »

I might point you at the title of this thread. I never said the UK was a police state - only that it was taking steps to get there.

That's pretty meaningless, any increase in police powers, no matter how small, can be called that. It's hyperbole at best and outright misinformation at worst.

MadsL

Oh please cut the "we're all going to be victims" crap. How many times have you been searched? I've been searched twice in my life, both times because I was out underage drinking. Have I been searched for no reason whatsoever just walking down the road? No, and I don't know any who has.

What part of the Uk was this?

RMD

MadsL wrote: »

Let's see what happens if you live a quiet life in the UK;

That type of statement make it sounds like it's common place, it's not. No matter what type of organization it is, once a position of authority is given to someone there's a very small number who will eventually abuse it. At the end of the day, the vast majority don't and as long as they don't I'm happy. The articles you linked aren't common place and I'd prefer the police to have these powers rather than not because of a small number of one-off cases.

MadsL

Did you actually watch the Jules Mattsson piece?

Randomly making up laws isn't what I'd call police work.

These are not uncommon incidents, in fact photographers groups are getting to the point where they are having to brief members on the law. One photography magazine printed the law on a lens cloth to help photographers show this to police;

Photographer films his own 'anti-terror' arrest

Kent Police clamp down on tall photographers

Photographers criminalised as police 'abuse' anti-terror laws

Amateur photographer 'arrested' for police officer pic

MEN photographer arrested for taking pictures outside court

G20 police threaten photographers with arrest

Police arrest photographer at traffic accident scene

'You're filming for fun? I don't believe you'


Will I go on?

El Soarab

Maybe the fact that these 'yobs' (I hate this word by the way) live in an oppressive Police state has something to do with why they started rioting.

I feel less oppressed in Singapore which is supposed to be an authoritarian regime than in England. Its not just British law, its a whole cultural thing against a certain demographic. In shops and other establishments and just on the street I'm looked at with suspicion because I'm a potential troublemaker

All this is perpetuated by such rags as the Daily Fail

Muslim = Terrorist; Someone who looks muslim = Terrorist
Old lad walking past a playground = paedophile
Young lad anywhere = troulbe maker or "yob"
Trouble maker with a suit & tie = Respectable young lad

RustyNut

A police force who can shoot a completely innocent man dead after failing to positively identify him and nobody is held to account might just have to much power..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#False_rape_allegations

cyclopath2001

RMD wrote: »

If you live in the UK / USA and go about your daily business in a lawful manner you're not going to attract attention from the police and you wont be subject to any of these stop and searches you seem to be so fearful of. .

Interesting quote from a current article in the Guardian:

Current powers allow Rim and others to identify people who may be worth further investigation and potential prosecution without looking at the contents of their messages.

What does this mean?

n32

a major contributory factor to the lonodn riots was that the young people who took to the streets have no fear of the criminal justice system. if they lived with the american justice sstem i dont think they would have been so quick to go out onto the streets

tails_naf

nesf wrote: »

That's pretty meaningless, any increase in police powers, no matter how small, can be called that. It's hyperbole at best and outright misinformation at worst.

I don't agree at all.
Firstly, these steps being outlined in the UK are not small.
And second there is a cumulative effect of all these small steps that can't be ignored.
If you look at the list of laws and measures outlined at the start of the thread, they all have one very clear goal - limitation of freedom, power to interfere/question/search when no crime has been observed, or accusation made against that person. It's pretty horrible.

Across the pond, the US has effectively sanctioned torture (and has been doing it - but no charges brought, so even though it is unconstitutional), have warrant-less wire-tapping, again against the constitution, but nothing is done, has the power to declare anyone an illegal enemy combatant - even for US citizens, and can hold them indefinitely, which is also against the constitution.

When the constitution can be violated, it definitely breeds a culture of fear of those in power, and as we see in the US, police sometimes trying to enforce laws that dont exist, and people follow along.

The UK is along the same track - and further along it in some ways (proliferation of CCTV, even recording sound with video, etc).

nesf

tails_naf wrote: »

I don't agree at all.
Firstly, these steps being outlined in the UK are not small.
And second there is a cumulative effect of all these small steps that can't be ignored.
If you look at the list of laws and measures outlined at the start of the thread, they all have one very clear goal - limitation of freedom, power to interfere/question/search when no crime has been observed, or accusation made against that person. It's pretty horrible.

Across the pond, the US has effectively sanctioned torture (and has been doing it - but no charges brought, so even though it is unconstitutional), have warrant-less wire-tapping, again against the constitution, but nothing is done, has the power to declare anyone an illegal enemy combatant - even for US citizens, and can hold them indefinitely, which is also against the constitution.

When the constitution can be violated, it definitely breeds a culture of fear of those in power, and as we see in the US, police sometimes trying to enforce laws that dont exist, and people follow along.

The UK is along the same track - and further along it in some ways (proliferation of CCTV, even recording sound with video, etc).

You're misreading me as saying that there's no civil liberties issues in the UK. I did not say that. I said that calling it a police state was woefully misleading given what a police state is.

Bob Z

MadsL wrote: »

So stop everybody doing everything. That will make life hard for criminals.

Did it occur to you that knife crime went up because police were stopping and searching people randomly and then reporting it as a 'knife crime' which the tabloids screamed about.

Huh?

Laminations

Oh dear.

MadsL wrote: »

I'm old enough to remember the days when it wasn't a crime to listen to music in a field in the UK; For the youngsters;

Criminal Justice Act 1994 Sections 63, 64 & 65: Raves

These sections give the police the power to order people to leave the land if they're believed to be preparing to hold a rave ( 2 or more people); waiting for a rave to start (10+); actually attending a rave (10+). Ignoring this direction, or returning to the land within the next week, are both offences, liable to 3 months' imprisonment and/or a £2,500 fine.

Section 65 lets any uniformed constable who believes a person is on their way to a rave within a 5-mile radius to stop them and direct them away from the area - failure to comply can lead to a maximum fine of £1000.

You make it sound like cops will stop you for sitting on the green with headphones in. Raves involve more than just loud music, trespass, drink, drugs, no proper health safety or security, no insurance. I've gone to plenty of legitimate outdoor gigs with no hassle from police, because well, they were run legitimately with permits etc. And when 'failure to comply' is mentioned that isnt really reasoned argument and calm objections - it's shouting and abuse. People shouldn't be permitted to respond to police directions like that, show the police respect and you get it in return..

So, in the years following the Miners strike UK police were given these new powers: (quick look using google timeline)

- Powers to enforce Civil law against Secondary Picketing

Not sure what this is. If it is protesting away from an assigned area and disruption of services then I don't see a problem. Just go join the primary legitimate picket

- Powers to act against old and New Age Travellers

Act how? Moving them on from illegal sites? Seizing stolen property? Are you suggesting the police should have no 'powers to act against old and New Age Travellers'. No problem with this one.

- powers to end raves even on private land with permission and possible forfeiture of sound equipment

Raves cause secondary issues, noise pollution, drunken disorderly behaviour, drug use etc. All large music event do. That's why gigs run on a permit system with police cooperation. The police once came to my private house, where me and my private friends were having a private party with my permission and they told me to turn the music down - I have neighbours. I did and guess what? That was that, no forfeiture of sound equipment.

- powers to act against hunt sabs: aggravated trespass.

And they shouldn't be preventing aggravated trespass?

- removal of the lack of inference 'right to silance' - "If a suspect fails to tell the police of his defence to the charge, or fails to explain certain incriminating circumstances when called upon to do so, or refuses to testify in court, the court may draw such inferences as appear proper. "

So? Speak up. You don't have to exercise the right to silence. The no comment malarky and failure to cooperate or offer any defence is a choice. People should be allowed interpret that as they wish.

- powers against squatters; squatters must leave within 24 hours, failing which they can go to prison for up to six months

And why should squatters be allowed occupy a building illegally? How do you think they should be dealt with? Hugs and kisses and the offer of a police constables sofa bed?

- DNA orders; non-intimate samples may be taken from anyone charged with a recordable offence. Dangerous Driving for instance. In some circumstances the samples, and information derived from them, may be retained even though the suspect is not convicted of an offence.

Eh.... don't go drink driving? Voila! They don't get your DNA. But god forbid they do. I mean with that genome sequence on their computer they could clone you! :eek:

- powers of stop and search in anticipation of violence

Teehee, they might find my vibrator. How often is this used willy nilly? Would it be better if Anto who is expected to carry out a revenge shooting in response to a previous gun attack is allowed walk into the intended victims local without any interest from police and that they only intervene once he has produced the gun, waved it about a bit and of course shot a few bullets into the victim, just so police know it's not a starter pistol. God forbid Antos busy day is interrupted and he is inconvenienced for the minute it takes him to turn out his pockets. I've never been stooped and searched by police because unlike a minority, when there is anticipation of violence, I go home.

- direct trespassers who intend to reside on land to leave if they have brought six vehicles onto the land (applies to common land)

They are trespassing!!

- powers to sieze knives and replica guns

Oh well this is just wrong. The police should be handing these out to children, not seizing them. I mean it's not like these replicas make their already hard job harder. Falm palm on that one

- youth curfews for 10 year and older who plead guilty to an offence

That's just sensible. Why do you think children who commit an offence should continue to have untestricted movement? There's an easy way to avoid that curfew... don't be a little demon 10 year old.

- police powers to round up truants

And people complain that the poor criminals and rioters don't have opportunities and job prospects yet when there are steps taken to make people go to school more often, it's a step towards a police state. How to avoid? Stay in school kids.

- powers to imprison the psycopathic

And youd prefer if the psychpathic roam free? Is this a joke?

- new disorder powers

To counter disorder I presume?

- introduction of ASBOs

To counter anti social behaviour, I'd agree these are an ineffective punishment. People joke about getting an ASBO.

- police designated alcohol disorder zones with extended powers.

God forbid we're not allowed crack open a can any old place.

- powers to disperse pub crowds

To prevent any escalation to violence, move people off roads etc. What's the problem? I was in a crowd outside the stags head one time and the gardai asked us go disperse. We did. The end.

- power to hack into personal computers without a court warrant.

I'd prefer court warrants but I'd imagine this is only done without them in exceptional circumstances. And if not who cares. What are they going to do? Read my work emails and look at my holiday pics?

Id focus on what police do with info rather than how they obtain it. There needs to be lock tight data protection. Once there are greater measures against police selling/giving info to journalists and very harsh punishments for same I don't care about this.

- power to fine for anti-social behaviour on trains

How to avoid? Don't be a dick on a train. I mean what's your alternative solution for handling this? A verbal warning? Arrest and a court case before any punishment? You'd have the courts clogged up with your anti-police ways.

- new powers to intervene in cases of domestic violence.

And this is a bad thing? How?

- given the power to charge suspects themselves for all summary offences, (assault, threatening behaviour and attacking a police officer. ... )

As opposed to? Some bureaucratic inefficient nightmare?

- 16-hour curfews for non-convicted or held terrorist suspects

I too would have issue with some 'terror' laws.

- on-the -spot powers to seize teenagers' iPods

Thats an odd one. Why? Would it be that the teenager has refused to remove his earphones when he is being spoken to by police?

- Four men alleged to have carried out an armed robbery at Heathrow went on trial in in an unprecedented case being heard without a jury (Criminal Justice Act 2003. )

Special criminal courts serve a purpose.

- police powers to crack down on kerb crawling

And?

- “Grounding orders” would give police sanctions against youths

Good. Like I've said above, ASBOs are ineffective.

- Police get powers over 'dispersal zones': police have the authority to ask groups of two or more people to leave the area if they are being antisocial or look likely to cause trouble ...
Section 30 dispersal order: power to move on groups of two or more people.

Just comply.. or avoid by not being anti-social

- police given powers to confiscate alcohol

Not from pubs or off licences, from people who shouldn't be drinking it or places it shouldn't be drank. What's your alternative when dealing with underage drinking in a park. 'Come on kids, put your alcohol in the boot and we'll drive you home to continue drinking'

- Police in England and Wales are to be given new powers from today to deal with gangs -laws will allow police to ban someone from meeting groups of other people going into rival gang areas or wearing clothes that are associated with a certain group ...

It's cos your in a gang innit. Don't wear gang clothes and you don't get mistaken for a gang member. The same logic applies to 'don't carry a gun and you won't get mistaken for being a criminal/gangster'

- new powers to name and shame extremists blocked from entering Britain and to share their details with other countries

You ate against the cooperation of police services? We for example shouldn't inform Spain about a known irish sex offender hitting their shores?

- the power to seize cars from driveways or garages if owners do not have insurance

Insure your damn car. Police should seize cars for numerous reasons and far more often than they do.

- new powers to allow Police to search people for knives and guns without reasonable suspicion

Teehee they might find my vibrator.

- powers of surveillance of the homes of people suspected of possessing and using firearms.

Again you think they shouldn't act until the firearm has been brandished (and of course fired) so they are sure that it's a gun?

- random stop and search powers

Repetition of above point

- 14 day detention for suspected terrorists

I'd like to see the evidentiary threshold raised for this, like I said, I'd have some issues with 'terror' laws.

And now; a few current headlines.

The Government will consider giving the police new powers including banning face coverings.

Police are to be granted new powers making it easier for them to carry out drug tests on arrest.

Home Secretary Theresa May raised the prospect of new powers to ban known hooligans from attending rallies and marches.

Senior officers are pushing for a change of law to allow officers to suspend a driver’s driving licence if police consider them to be unsafe.

Ministers and the security services are planning draconian powers to shut down or disrupt mobile phone messaging services and social networks in times of civil disorder.

I'd only take issue with the last proposal as I see it as ineffective and too broad brush but hey if you want to kick up a stink because your Internet goes down for a while visit http://first-world-problems.com/

So, enough already?? Or do Britons just want a Govt "tough on crime". My sister-in-law was ranting for martial law on Facebook the other day :rolleyes:

Yes please. Give me tough on crime. It won't affect me in any meaningful way because I don't engage in crime. On all my visits to england and all my time here I've never had a problem with police. It's not a buggy to just comply with what they ask you, if it is 'move on', 'can I check that bag' etc. I'll start to complain when they are requesting I bend over for a random anal cavity search.

My brother once came home complaining that the police had questioned him as to why he was sitting in a car in the middle of Phoenix park at 2am in the dark. Now it was innocent enough, he was just there with a friend chatting but it is still suspicious behaviour and tbere is little point getting annoyed at the police for checking it out.

The OP is the type of person responsible for the hands of police being tied behind their backs. They complain about the law rather than the offenders, and are responsible for why the police stood back during the riots which may have resulted in much of the injury, destruction and deaths. Its quite easy to avoid confrontation with police. So just behave.

Oh and OP, could you list out your alternative methods for dealing with the points you raised.
I.e. suspicious activity, anti-social behaviour, concealed weapons, gangland behaviour, domestic violence etc

kippy

Right,
There are obviously two very opposing views here.
My view:
It's a bit of a chicken/egg situation (well some seem to be making out like this)
Some are saying that the increased powers given to the police are the root cause of the issues we have seen in the UK. Others are saying that the powers given to the police are as a result of incidents such as this.
The fact of the matter is that there are large numbers of youths in the UK and indeed in some parts of Ireland that have no fear of the law or who have at best very loose morals. Why this is and how to resolve it should be the ultimate aim of the authoraties however at the moment there is very obviously a requirement for tougher laws to deal with these issues.
If the majority of the electorate don't like the laws they have a mechanism to change them by getting rid of the lawmakers.

While some here have said they don't agree with the " If you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to worry about" I completely agree with it. In the majority of cases this holds true. The examples given where this has evidently not worked out only highlight that the control mechanisms for the police (Ombudsmen etc) work and work well. And these examples, are in a very small number when you consider the numbers involved.

We have laws in this country and no doubt in the UK that aren't strictly enforced enough - nor are the sentences handed down enough for a lot of these lawbreakers, they have little fear.

Oasis_Dublin

"Police state" is certainly an excessive term. Yes there are police who sometimes exceed their briefs but I don't feel it is widespread. In general, to use Ireland as the example, my dealings with the Gardaí have usually been fine, as long as you don't attempt to act like more of a prat than the Garda is.

Einhard

One of the major contributory factors in the escalation of violence on the streets after Saturday, was the failure of the police to intervene effectively. There were many reports of police standing on as rioters looted shops, burned premises, and threatened the lives and safety of other citizens. Hardly the approach, IMO, of a tool of state repression.

Only on Tuesday, days after the riots broke out, and with parts of several major cities in flames, did David Cameron suggested the use of water cannon and baton rounds. Again, waiting so long to even contemplate such measures is hardly indicative of a police state.

Is there such a thing as creeping police power? Of course, and we need to be vigilant against it, but to suggest that a state is moving towards totalitarianism because the democratically elected parliament enact such measures as outlined in the first post is extremely hyperbolic.

The divergence between the liberal and right wing reaction to situations like this always amuses me. On one side, we have those who demand extreme sanctions such as the loss of benefits, and see any questioning of the wider social aspects of such riots as absolving the rioters of lame. And on the other side, we have those who seek to blame everyone but the rioters, or seek to exaggerate the social reality to an extent that amounts to de facto absolution of the protagonists.

Overheal

- powers to imprison the psycopathic

In all fairness I support measures like the Florida Baker Act and in my own family experience a couple years ago, it didn't have enough teeth to do what it needed to. Resulting in a loved one putting themselves in far more danger than necessary and having to be taken in under the act 3 times over the course of 6 weeks, in what should have been taken care of Once. Instead the lying and the dymensia and the running out onto the street and in front of cars and driving in S-shapes down the road were a direct consequence because my relative's other personality at the time didn't want to be kept in hospital or accept treatment and calmly asked to be released. Which under the current law, is completely legit, and they had to release her. Attempts at civil commitment didn't work out all that well, at least not until the police got involved the third time. Nevermind that they were completely detached from our reality and believed ghosts were trying to show them how to travel back in time to prevent death.

MadsL

Laminations wrote: »

Oh dear.

You make it sound like cops will stop you for sitting on the green with headphones in. Raves involve more than just loud music, trespass, drink, drugs, no proper health safety or security, no insurance.

Yes because we couldn't possibly just have people enjoying themselves in a field without health and safety or insurance. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should educate yourself in the events of the early 90s that lead to this law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlemorton_Common_Festival

Travelling to and attending a party in a field now came with the risk of getting a criminal record.

Raves cause secondary issues, noise pollution, drunken disorderly behaviour, drug use etc. All large music event do. That's why gigs run on a permit system with police cooperation. The police once came to my private house, where me and my private friends were having a private party with my permission and they told me to turn the music down - I have neighbours. I did and guess what? That was that, no forfeiture of sound equipment.

In a huge field in rural england the neighbours are probably sheep!! I never saw drunken behaviour at any rave I attended in the UK in the late 80s/early 90s.
You are comparing a party at your house (In Ireland - we are discussing the UK) to a rave; but I guess the UK police would agree with you -

15 people at a BBQ = 'rave'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/8155441.stm

I've gone to plenty of legitimate outdoor gigs with no hassle from police, because well, they were run legitimately with permits etc.

What has this to do with anything?

And when 'failure to comply' is mentioned that isnt really reasoned argument and calm objections - it's shouting and abuse. People shouldn't be permitted to respond to police directions like that, show the police respect and you get it in return..

Really? How many videos do I have to post where people have responded with "reasoned argument and calm objections" to be met with arrest for "breaching the peace" or other public order offences.


Secondary Picketing

Not sure what this is. If it is protesting away from an assigned area and disruption of services then I don't see a problem. Just go join the primary legitimate picket

Could you at least google it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picketing_(protest)

Powers to act against old and New Age Travellers

Act how? Moving them on from illegal sites? Seizing stolen property? Are you suggesting the police should have no 'powers to act against old and New Age Travellers'. No problem with this one.

Do you know what a halting site is? Four out of ten local authorities in the UK fail to provide them, and there is no provision in law to force provision of sites.

And they shouldn't be preventing aggravated trespass?

Depends what your definition of trespass is; in some cases in a public place or common land you could be arrested for trespass - the UK police tried frequently to enforce this on private land where permission had been granted or in one famous case where they arrested the landowner for 'trespass'. There was also the situation of "trespassory assembly" where if the police obtained an order, they could ban gathering in excess of 20 people in a public place. Those protesting anyway were arrested on 'trespass' charges.
So? Speak up. You don't have to exercise the right to silence. The no comment malarky and failure to cooperate or offer any defence is a choice. People should be allowed interpret that as they wish.

And why should squatters be allowed occupy a building illegally? How do you think they should be dealt with? Hugs and kisses and the offer of a police constables sofa bed?

In some cases squatting is used as a form of protest. For example 1993 a hugely historically significant cafe in Prague was forcibly reopened after American investors failed to keep it running - http://www.praguepost.com/archivescontent/12121-guerrilla-cafe-patrons-reopen-shuttered-slavia.html
In Dublin in 2003 42 Parnell Square was squatted in protest at the building falling apart through the neglect of the owner. http://www.indymedia.ie/article/60402?comment_order=asc&condense_comments=true&userlanguage=ga&save_prefs=true

DNA Profiling

Eh.... don't go drink driving? Voila! They don't get your DNA. But god forbid they do. I mean with that genome sequence on their computer they could clone you! :eek:

Teehee, they might find my vibrator. How often is this used willy nilly? Would it be better if Anto who is expected to carry out a revenge shooting in response to a previous gun attack is allowed walk into the intended victims local without any interest from police and that they only intervene once he has produced the gun, waved it about a bit and of course shot a few bullets into the victim, just so police know it's not a starter pistol. God forbid Antos busy day is interrupted and he is inconvenienced for the minute it takes him to turn out his pockets. I've never been stooped and searched by police because unlike a minority, when there is anticipation of violence, I go home.

I don't think you are really getting this; apart from the childish comments. If there is a suspicion, of course Anto should be searched. Where you allow stop and search without suspiciant - then you get crazy statistics and stops based on racial profiling.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jun/17/stop-and-search-police
"The number of white people being stopped and searched increased by just under 30% between 2004/05 and 2008/09, while the number of black and Asian people being stopped and searched increased by over 70%," said the bulletin.



- direct trespassers who intend to reside on land to leave if they have brought six vehicles onto the land (applies to common land)

They are trespassing!!

Do you know what common land is??

Replica Guns..

Oh well this is just wrong. The police should be handing these out to children, not seizing them. I mean it's not like these replicas make their already hard job harder. Falm palm on that one

I dare you to go to this forum and post a thread "All replicas should be siezed by police" http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=830
Did it cross your mind that there could be legal, peaceful resons for owning, and carrying a replica in a public place.


Curfew/Truancy

That's just sensible. Why do you think children who commit an offence should continue to have untestricted movement? There's an easy way to avoid that curfew... don't be a little demon 10 year old.
And people complain that the poor criminals and rioters don't have opportunities and job prospects yet when there are steps taken to make people go to school more often, it's a step towards a police state. How to avoid? Stay in school kids.

I do agree this can be useful - however it is another power where the police have transfered civil law in to criminal - hence making it more likely juveniles will pick up a police record.

Mental health

And youd prefer if the psychpathic roam free? Is this a joke?

Do you feel prisons are necessarily the best places to treat psycopathic conditions?


Disorder

To counter disorder I presume?

One mans's disorder is anothers protest.

ASBOs

To counter anti social behaviour, I'd agree these are an ineffective punishment. People joke about getting an ASBO.

Public Drinking

God forbid we're not allowed crack open a can any old place.

Your anti-social behavour is the problem, which then certails my freedom to enjoy a drink in a public park. Misdirected law I would say.

Dispersement

To prevent any escalation to violence, move people off roads etc. What's the problem? I was in a crowd outside the stags head one time and the gardai asked us go disperse. We did. The end.

UK Will I draw you a map?? By the way, you were asked to disperse not forcibly dispersed.

Computer Surveillance

I'd prefer court warrants but I'd imagine this is only done without them in exceptional circumstances. And if not who cares. What are they going to do? Read my work emails and look at my holiday pics?

You 'imagine', yet you are arguing the point. Could you not bother to go find something on this; ffs this was all over the headlines a few weeks ago;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/news-of-the-world-pinging

In another (admittedly US example ) "plaintiffs charged that two suburban Philadelphia high schools secretly spied on students by surreptitiously and remotely activating webcams embedded in school-issued laptops the students were using at home, violating the Act. The schools admitted to secretly snapping over 66,000 webshots and screenshots, including webcam shots of students in their bedrooms."

Id focus on what police do with info rather than how they obtain it. There needs to be lock tight data protection. Once there are greater measures against police selling/giving info to journalists and very harsh punishments for same I don't care about this.

Who polices the police?

How to avoid? Don't be a dick on a train. I mean what's your alternative solution for handling this? A verbal warning? Arrest and a court case before any punishment? You'd have the courts clogged up with your anti-police ways.

"anti-police ways" - I'm not anti-police. Far from it, I'm probably more law abiding than most people I know; however I have issues with laws that are passed largely as knee-jerk responses to topica events.

Domestic Violence

And this is a bad thing? How?

I quoted this as part of the overall cumulative extension of powers.

Summary Charges

As opposed to? Some bureaucratic inefficient nightmare?

Yes, that bureaucratic inefficient nightmare we have used for centuries. Something wrong with it?

Police seizing iPods

Thats an odd one. Why? Would it be that the teenager has refused to remove his earphones when he is being spoken to by police?

Nope, punishment for anti-social behaviour. http://www.whichcriminallawyer.co.uk/2011/06/offenders-could-have-goods-seized/

Special criminal courts serve a purpose.

yes, in crimes against the state

kerb crawling

And?

Open to abuse - could really stitch someone up (he was driving slowly in a known red-light district)

Good. Like I've said above, ASBOs are ineffective.

They may be - these will likely fail too - but probably not without negative consequence.

"look likely to cause trouble ..."

Just comply.. or avoid by not being anti-social

You really can't see an issue with standing around doing nothing at all in a public place and police coming over to you because the have the power to move you on on the grounds you look likely to cause trouble ...
What did you do as a teenager - me I hung around on the streets doing nothing.

It's cos your in a gang innit. Don't wear gang clothes and you don't get mistaken for a gang member. The same logic applies to 'don't carry a gun and you won't get mistaken for being a criminal/gangster'

Don't wear hoodies?

You ate against the cooperation of police services? We for example shouldn't inform Spain about a known irish sex offender hitting their shores?

"extremists" not sex offenders; don't muddy the issue. We are talking about the power of police to decide you ain't coming in and then broadcast that to the world. All on the belief that you are an extremist.

Insure your damn car. Police should seize cars for numerous reasons and far more often than they do.

I decide not to use my car and let my insurance lapse. It is parked on my land. You think police should have the power to seize my property on my land?

Teehee they might find my vibrator.

Really - are you twelve? Grow up.

Lost patience now....

The OP is the type of person responsible for the hands of police being tied behind their backs. They complain about the law rather than the offenders, and are responsible for why the police stood back during the riots which may have resulted in much of the injury, destruction and deaths. Its quite easy to avoid confrontation with police. So just behave.

The hands of police are not "tied behind their backs" the UK had plenty of laws and ability to police the law in the 80s - the new measures don't add anything to that - they just make it easier for police to follow a 'because I said so' approacj to policing.

They are called public places for a reason; however in the UK standing in a public place you could be forced to give your details, searched, detained, or asked to move on, or separated from your friends. Interesting to compare that with US bill of rights and the lack of any bill of rights in the UK. Subjects not Citizens.

Oh and OP, could you list out your alternative methods for dealing with the points you raised.
I.e. suspicious activity, anti-social behaviour, concealed weapons, gangland behaviour, domestic violence etc

All are covered in laws passed prior to 1980.

Overheal

Really? How many videos do I have to post where people have responded with "reasoned argument and calm objections" to be met with arrest for "breaching the peace" or other public order offences.

And in all of those videos you will see Officers who themselves are not aware of the Laws in the situation. I could show you other videos that go wonderfully, where they Do know the law. They are Human, after all.

In a huge field in rural england the neighbours are probably sheep!!

Your tone and your "Probably"s don't do much to support your argument.

In some cases squatting is used as a form of protest. For example 1993 a hugely historically significant cafe in Prague was forcibly reopened after American investors failed to keep it running - http://www.praguepost.com/archivesco...ed-slavia.html

In which they had the permission of an owner?

Who polices the police?

In England you can probably answer that yourself. Local Police can be policed by State Police. State Police by (in the US) Federal Investigators (FBI) Who themselves get pretty tightly watched by Congress and Senate - the Legislative branch of Government; and the Judiciary, such as the Attorney General. These in turn are kept in check by the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court, the head of the Judiciary. And I'm probably not even explaining half of it. It's all Interconnected, and so at the end you aren't left with a Supreme Ruler.

I dare you to go to this forum and post a thread "All replicas should be siezed by police" http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=830
Did it cross your mind that there could be legal, peaceful resons for owning, and carrying a replica in a public place.

And the Police can exercise their powers how they see fit. They are not forced to remove a replica from your possession if you are transporting it.

Do you feel prisons are necessarily the best places to treat psycopathic conditions?

Who said Prison? You need to get your thinking cap on straight. There are Hospitals and Wards that cater to mental illness. Please again (or at least once) Read the summary of the Baker Act:

• The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (commonly known as the "Baker Act") is a Florida statute allowing for involuntary examination of an individual.
  
• The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment). It can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person
  
• has a mental illness (as defined in the Baker Act) and
• is a harm to self, harm to others, or self neglectful (as defined in the Baker Act).
  
• Examinations may last up to 72 hours and occur in over 100 Florida Department of Children and Families-designated receiving facilities statewide. [Prison??]
  
• There are many possible outcomes following examination of the patient. This includes the release of the individual to the community (or other community placement), a petition for involuntary inpatient placement (what some call civil commitment), involuntary outpatient placement (what some call outpatient commitment or assisted treatment orders), or voluntary treatment (if the person is competent to consent to voluntary treatment and consents to voluntary treatment). The involuntary outpatient placement language in the Baker Act took effect in 2005.
  
• The act was named for a Florida state representative, Maxine Baker, who had a strong interest in mental health issues, served as chair of a House Committee on mental health, and was the sponsor of the bill.
  
• The nickname of the legislation has led to the term "Baker Act" as a transitive verb, and "Baker Acted" as a passive-voice verb, for invoking the Act to force an individual's commitment. Although the Baker Act is a statute only for the state of Florida, use of "Baker Acting" as a verb has become prevalent as a slang term for involuntary commitment in other regions of the United States.

I'm sure similarities apply in the UK.

One mans's disorder is anothers protest.

I think you misunderstand the concept entirely behind Civil Disobedience.

Your anti-social behavour is the problem, which then certails my freedom to enjoy a drink in a public park. Misdirected law I would say.

Oh I feel you. Here in the US you cant have a container basically Anywhere. And technically the law doesnt even protect your right to have one in your own home in some legislative areas, but that doesn't really harm anyone's ability to enjoy a bottle on their porch deck. Woe is me though if I want to have a can in the parking lot at walmart. But then again I think of the kind of young people that used to trawl around Ennis and Clarecastle, even in Carlow at 4 in the morning when I'm trying to sleep, and I know how different things can get. So while I don't particularly like the laws here about public drinking I understand what kind of workload that would put on a police force that's already frankly asked to do a lot.

I don't think you are really getting this; apart from the childish comments. If there is a suspicion, of course Anto should be searched. Where you allow stop and search without suspiciant - then you get crazy statistics and stops based on racial profiling.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/j...-search-police
"The number of white people being stopped and searched increased by just under 30% between 2004/05 and 2008/09, while the number of black and Asian people being stopped and searched increased by over 70%," said the bulletin.

Do you also have the racial statistics for convicted felons? I'm sure when you dig up that statistic you will have a good time trying to argue the entire correlation is down to cops randomly stopping more black people than white.

UK Will I draw you a map??

I'm sure he's not a child. Is there really a need for this kind of argument?

You 'imagine', yet you are arguing the point. Could you not bother to go find something on this; ffs this was all over the headlines a few weeks ago;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...-world-pinging

In another (admittedly US example ) "plaintiffs charged that two suburban Philadelphia high schools secretly spied on students by surreptitiously and remotely activating webcams embedded in school-issued laptops the students were using at home, violating the Act. The schools admitted to secretly snapping over 66,000 webshots and screenshots, including webcam shots of students in their bedrooms."

Yet neither example supports your argument: in both cases the action taken was illegal. Unless you're trying to Paint a picture of what "could" happen. In which case you shouldn't be mocking other people for "imagining" things.

Don't wear hoodies?

You should read up on Los Angeles some time.

I decide not to use my car and let my insurance lapse. It is parked on my land. You think police should have the power to seize my property on my land?

Driveway, not Land. The Driveway is a direct implication your vehicle is in active use. In fact the driveway is a funny thing in many jurisdictions. But in this case if you decide to Shelf your car you should probably Shelf it and not leave it in the driveway. At least buy a tarp for it. I certainly doubt anyone is going to seize your car for being a couple days or a week or two out of coverage.

Batsy

MadsL wrote: »

Or do Britons just want a Govt "tough on crime".

Yep. Of course they do (I think that's a very silly question to be honest with you).

A poll done a couple of days ago, I think by YouGov, has shown that 71% of the British public want more police on our streets.

MadsL

A poll done a couple of days ago, I think by YouGov, has shown that 71% of the British public want more police on our streets.

Q. Would you like more police on the street?
A. Yes please

Q. Would you like your civil liberties upheld?
A. Yes please

Q. Would you like some ice-cream?
A. Yes please.

Argumentum Ad Populum. Typical politically motivated polls; usually with skewed questioning - of course people say yes when offered a choice.

Overheal, I was going to respond to your post when I really questioned if I wanted to debate the following with you;

Do you also have the racial statistics for convicted felons? I'm sure when you dig up that statistic you will have a good time trying to argue the entire correlation is down to cops randomly stopping more black people than white.

What exactly are you inferring here? I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to say with that race statistic other than what the statistics indicate; that being black or asian in the UK means you are 26 times more likely to be searched. I think you are setting up a very spurious argument about the racial balance is in UK prisons.

MadsL

71% seems to be popular; here is 71% of 1,000 people who want fewer immigrants

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/263088/Too-many-migrants-say-71-of-Brits/

My skeptics hat keeps twitching for some reason :rolleyes:

kippy

MadsL wrote: »

71% seems to be popular; here is 71% of 1,000 people who want fewer immigrants

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/263088/Too-many-migrants-say-71-of-Brits/

My skeptics hat keeps twitching for some reason :rolleyes:

What are you skeptical of? You'd swear the people had no choice?

SamHarris

tails_naf wrote: »

You see, that's exactly what they want you to think.

It happens all the time - where a crime/riot/whatever happens that grabs the nations attention. The powers that be use this as an opportunity to grab more power, and dress it up as trying to prevent future occurances of that crime. Whether the law actually would prevent it or not does not matter, what matters is more power has been gotten and will stay permanently. Wash, rinse, repeat.

In fact, the stop and search 'power' that the police have was cited as a reason the youth were so disillusioned with the police and harbored deep resentment for them. But fixing that would reduce the powers they have, so of course that avenue is not explored.

Its Just like the patriot act in the US - Callously used the 911 attacks, and the mysterious anthrax attacks (that were never solved) on senators and congressmen to scare the bejesus out of the us - was a massive step towards a police state with the very broad powers it gave to us police/FBI/etc..

Just pointing out the Patriot act was powers to use wiretapping and information gathering (like medical records etc) without the standard of evidence required before, specifically when terrorism is suspected, and the evidence can only be used in terror related cases. It is hardly the massive sweeping act people try and portray it to be creating a massive police state, with jack booted thugs being able to hold you in some basement for weeks beating a confesion out of you. The hyperbole used in thesee discussions is staggering.

Irish guardi have more power to hold terror suspects and incararate them without recourse to the law far in excess of those in the US.
It always staggered me how many on the left were appalled by Gitmo, unaware that the exavt same "Abuses" can legally take place here (on Irish soil, the reason Ditmo is not on US soil) and has done routinely in the not too distant past, with massive support to tackle the exact same problem the US faces today. If Irish/UK newspapers focused more on their own society and government, we would all be much better served.


The very fact that there is still massive discussion about these things, and legal/political recources for people who disagree with them is exactly the reason neither the US nor the UK are not a "police state" in the historical sense of the word.

Should increases in police power be discussed and constrained? Certianly, but every increase does not mean it is a police state.

On another note, I do beleive England/UK has the greatest predilection for becoming overtly authotarian in this manner, both because of its culture, and it does not have a document like a constitution to throw up roadblocks in a time of crisis.

MadsL

What are you skeptical of?

I'm skeptical of polls. 71% of statistics are made up.

nesf

MadsL wrote: »

I'm skeptical of polls. 71% of statistics are made up.

You can't just dismiss polls you disagree with that easily if you want to be taken seriously in fairness.

MadsL

You can't just dismiss polls you disagree with that easily if you want to be taken seriously in fairness.

Given that I'm skeptical of a poll that I have no source for (no link provided nor can I find it on the YouGov site) and I cannot see either the sample size nor the questions asked, I feel I should be skeptical about the poll. Would you not agree?

Overheal

MadsL wrote: »

Overheal, I was going to respond to your post when I really questioned if I wanted to debate the following with you;



What exactly are you inferring here? I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to say with that race statistic other than what the statistics indicate; that being black or asian in the UK means you are 26 times more likely to be searched. I think you are setting up a very spurious argument about the racial balance is in UK prisons.

Inferring that I have a hunch that the Incarceration demographics will correlate to the Stop and Search statistics. Not much else.

nesf

MadsL wrote: »

Given that I'm skeptical of a poll that I have no source for (no link provided nor can I find it on the YouGov site) and I cannot see either the sample size nor the questions asked, I feel I should be skeptical about the poll. Would you not agree?

Sceptical of whether it exists perhaps, of the poll itself no, since you know nothing of it.

Chuck Stone

MadsL wrote: »

Photographers criminalised as police 'abuse' anti-terror laws

That really pissed me off. :mad:

Laminations

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That really pissed me off. :mad:

Really? Firstly, photographers haven't been 'criminalised' as the headline states. Secondly are you annoyed that they stopped a middle age white man for questioning because he didn't look 'Muslim enough to be a terrorist'? Thirdly, the article unsurprisingly enough doesn't tell the whole story - i.e. How he went from being questioned and searched to spending 5 hours in a cell.

In my experience when I worked in retail a journalist could've written a piece headlined 'Man queues for half an hour and is then refused because he is black'. Where the real story was it was Christmas, we were heavily understaffed (managements fault), a customer (who happened to be black) got to the front of the queue and starting digging into staff, he was apologised to and told that he could get a manager, he continued to insult staff members until they told him he wasn't being served. Now that could be edited down to match the headline.

What's missing from the news article is any information as to how the photographer reacted to being questioned. Maybe he called the cops pigs and shouted 'do I look like a Muslim?'. Maybe he refused the cops permission to look in his stuff? Maybe he didnt explain his small knife because he was too angry. Maybe he acted like a prick and the cops thought 'ah here, a stint in the cell will cool you off'.

And I see no problem with questioning anyone for being outside a landmark building and for all we know a suspected terrorist target. I mean if it emerged that police ignored a photographer who was scoping out the underground before the 7/7 bombings we'd have people calling for them to be fired etc.

Laminations

OP, you seem to have an issue with the police having any jurisdiction over 'common areas' where you think that people should be allowed hold unauthorised illegal events (specifically raves*), trespass, park your 4x4s, drink alcohol, enagage in anti-social behaviour, ignore police instructions, park up your caravan, and raise your family. These common areas are public spaces, they are for everyone and laws must apply to them so they aren't illegally occupied and/or damaged.

Your sneering at people who want the government to get 'tough on crime' would suggest that you want them to be more lenient.

And you didn't answer my question. What are your alternative methods for dealing with squatting, trespass, illegal events, concealed weapons, suspicious activity, domestic violence, gang affiliation, anti-social behaviour?

*Funnily enough looking at the history of raves, although they are synonymous with acid and ecstasy, the legal ones seemed to attract little trouble from police. When they closed, it was often due to the behaviour of the clientelle

January 30th - Hacienda closes after door staff are threatened with a gun. "We are sick of the violence" - Tony Wilson

It was the large illegal ones that caused the trouble and backlash

The scene takes a new direction as the parties move from inner city clubs and warehouses to the countryside. All competing to be bigger and better than the last.
<snip>

So the end effect is that 1000's of people can decend on one location in a matter of minutes. Once a party goes past a certain size there is, in reality very little the Police can do.

Do you think it is right for police to allow an illegal event develop to a point where they are powerless to intervene? Where it essentially becomes an uncontrolled juggernaut?