FREE TAPATALK APP

Chaos · 29th November 2004, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Granted the UK has stricter laws about some things, like weapons, than the US. But to call it a "police state" because of that is to show an incredible ignorance of what a police state is.

I once heard someone opine that people of our time, having had no direct experience with the ilk of Hitler, Stalin, and so on, have only a limited concept of what true evil really is so we tend to create 'evil' out of stupid things. Calling the UK a 'police state' over a difference in fine points of their law compared to ours (and a fine point that does not seem all that unpopular with the citizens of the UK at that) is the height of stupidity and really makes that guy seem to have a point, as afar as I am concerned.

Good point.

It would be just as stupid to call the US a police state for their laws about, say, alcohol (though I confess I donÂ´t understand why, in most states AFAIK, you can own and shoot a gun at 16, but canÂ´t have a beer until youÂ´re 21).

Darat · 29th November 2004, 12:33 PM

geni mentioned it but it is hard to take criticism by someone who confuses England with the UK!

The title of the thread says "England really is a police state" and his opening post ends with â€œThe U.K. Nuff said." Such ignorance in one who makes grandiose claims is laughable.

Nikk · 29th November 2004, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darat
geni mentioned it but it is hard to take criticism by someone who confuses England with the UK!

The title of the thread says "England really is a police state" and his opening post ends with â€œThe U.K. Nuff said." Such ignorance in one who makes grandiose claims is laughable.

Moving on.

As this is supposed to have been a random stop and search under the anti terrorism act which must be authorised by a senior police officer and notified to the home secretary I can forsee some interesting questions in parliament. As if Blunkett wasn't in enough trouble!

Poor old thing. heh heh.

CFLarsen · 29th November 2004, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darat
geni mentioned it but it is hard to take criticism by someone who confuses England with the UK!

The title of the thread says "England really is a police state" and his opening post ends with â€œThe U.K. Nuff said." Such ignorance in one who makes grandiose claims is laughable.

Or Americans confusing Danes with Scandinavians....

Jon_in_london · 30th November 2004, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nikk

As this is supposed to have been a random stop and search under the anti terrorism act which must be authorised by a senior police officer and notified to the home secretary I can forsee some interesting questions in parliament. As if Blunkett wasn't in enough trouble!

Well, its not as if each and every search has to be specifically authrorised by a senior officer! The right to conduct Section 44 stops is granted for one month periods to certain boroughs/territories. All the stops are recorded by I dont think Blunkett actually reads through each one!

Darat · 30th November 2004, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Well, its not as if each and every search has to be specifically authrorised by a senior officer! The right to conduct Section 44 stops is granted for one month periods to certain boroughs/territories. All the stops are recorded by I dont think Blunkett actually reads through each one!

Oh I don't know, it looks as if reads though most visa applications....

Iconoclast · 30th November 2004, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Or Americans confusing Danes with Scandinavians....

What the hell is a Scandinavia anyway? I confess I have no idea. From Claus' post I guess Danelanders are part of it. Danelanders...

Zep · 30th November 2004, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zep
But if it was an Arab(-looking) guy, it would be a violation of his 4th Amendment rights?

Tic tic tic... still waiting for an answer, Dicky.

Zep · 30th November 2004, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony

Quote:

Originally posted by Zep
Can I ask you: Do US citizens in the UK have US rights?

Do you not have human rights just because you step outside the borders of your country?

Sorry, that wasn't the question I asked, Tony. And although the question was addressed to Patrick, I'm happy to see another shot at it from you.

But in answer to your sidetrack, obviously it is "Yes, you do have human rights". And do you then agree that these SAME basic human right should extend to nationals of ALL countries outside their borders? Say, for example, two Australian nationals (remember, Australia is one of your allies), one captured by the USA in Afghanistan and one kidnapped by the USA in Pakistan, and both still being held in violation of these rights in Gitmo? Hmmm?

I look forward to your howls of outrage directed at these deprivers of human rights if you really mean what you say in your answer.

Zep · 30th November 2004, 01:26 AM

Actually, I just read the Spectator article again, and I once again, could swear it was almost identical to the plot from a British cop-show. I just can't place the show or the episode...The Bill, perhaps?

Nikk · 30th November 2004, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Well, its not as if each and every search has to be specifically authrorised by a senior officer! The right to conduct Section 44 stops is granted for one month periods to certain boroughs/territories. All the stops are recorded by I dont think Blunkett actually reads through each one!

Agreed of course. My objection is that these stop and searches amount to simple fishing expeditions with no realistic connection to turning up information relating to terrorism.

S.44. 3 states...

"Â_ Â_Â_Â_Â_(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism."
Â_
Â_If the report is accurate a random search of one car in 25 had no realistic chance of turning up anything re terrorism. This would arguably be in breach of the act as there seems no reasonable cause to think that such a procedure would produce valuable information.

The old sus laws caused plenty of problems in the past and the act seems to be reintroducing them by a back door route.

Thanz · 30th November 2004, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iconoclast
What the hell is a Scandinavia anyway? I confess I have no idea. From Claus' post I guess Danelanders are part of it. Danelanders...

I've always understood Scandanavia to be the region that includes Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. I don't think that it has any sort of official status, just a name for the region - like "Middle East".

Tony · 30th November 2004, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zep

But in answer to your sidetrack, obviously it is "Yes, you do have human rights".

So national border are meaningless when it comes to rights, thank you. The rest of your post is non-relevant caca.

richardm · 30th November 2004, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nikk
If the report is accurate a random search of one car in 25 had no realistic chance of turning up anything re terrorism. This would arguably be in breach of the act as there seems no reasonable cause to think that such a procedure would produce valuable information.

Well, it did catch this bloke, didn't it

But according to the article:

Quote:

â€˜We are conducting random stop and search under current anti-terrorist legislation,â€™ began the constable, addressing me through my open side window. â€˜Would you mind if we searched your vehicle? Weâ€™re training these new community support officers.â€™

I interpreted that as meaning that the reason they were stopping-and-searching was not because they were actually working but because they were - as the copper said - training new officers using real people. They just happened to get lucky when they picked this shouty aggressive journalist.

29th November 2004, 12:27 PM	#41
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 9,810	Quote: Originally posted by Nyarlathotep Granted the UK has stricter laws about some things, like weapons, than the US. But to call it a "police state" because of that is to show an incredible ignorance of what a police state is. I once heard someone opine that people of our time, having had no direct experience with the ilk of Hitler, Stalin, and so on, have only a limited concept of what true evil really is so we tend to create 'evil' out of stupid things. Calling the UK a 'police state' over a difference in fine points of their law compared to ours (and a fine point that does not seem all that unpopular with the citizens of the UK at that) is the height of stupidity and really makes that guy seem to have a point, as afar as I am concerned. Good point. It would be just as stupid to call the US a police state for their laws about, say, alcohol (though I confess I donÂ´t understand why, in most states AFAIK, you can own and shoot a gun at 16, but canÂ´t have a beer until youÂ´re 21).
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

29th November 2004, 12:33 PM	#42
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,990	geni mentioned it but it is hard to take criticism by someone who confuses England with the UK! The title of the thread says "England really is a police state" and his opening post ends with â€œThe U.K. Nuff said." Such ignorance in one who makes grandiose claims is laughable.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

29th November 2004, 01:08 PM	#43
Nikk Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,249	Quote: Originally posted by Darat geni mentioned it but it is hard to take criticism by someone who confuses England with the UK! The title of the thread says "England really is a police state" and his opening post ends with â€œThe U.K. Nuff said." Such ignorance in one who makes grandiose claims is laughable. Moving on. As this is supposed to have been a random stop and search under the anti terrorism act which must be authorised by a senior police officer and notified to the home secretary I can forsee some interesting questions in parliament. As if Blunkett wasn't in enough trouble! Poor old thing. heh heh.
Nikk Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,249

29th November 2004, 01:20 PM	#44
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Quote: Originally posted by Darat geni mentioned it but it is hard to take criticism by someone who confuses England with the UK! The title of the thread says "England really is a police state" and his opening post ends with â€œThe U.K. Nuff said." Such ignorance in one who makes grandiose claims is laughable. Or Americans confusing Danes with Scandinavians....
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

30th November 2004, 12:28 AM	#45
Jon_in_london Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,994	Quote: Originally posted by Nikk As this is supposed to have been a random stop and search under the anti terrorism act which must be authorised by a senior police officer and notified to the home secretary I can forsee some interesting questions in parliament. As if Blunkett wasn't in enough trouble! Well, its not as if each and every search has to be specifically authrorised by a senior officer! The right to conduct Section 44 stops is granted for one month periods to certain boroughs/territories. All the stops are recorded by I dont think Blunkett actually reads through each one!
	__________________ Radicals and Racists Don't point your finger at me I'm a small town white boy Just tryin' to make ends meet Don't need your religion Don't watch that much T.V. Just makin' my livin', baby Well that's enough for me

30th November 2004, 12:32 AM	#46
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,990	Quote: Originally posted by Jon_in_london Well, its not as if each and every search has to be specifically authrorised by a senior officer! The right to conduct Section 44 stops is granted for one month periods to certain boroughs/territories. All the stops are recorded by I dont think Blunkett actually reads through each one! Oh I don't know, it looks as if reads though most visa applications....
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

30th November 2004, 01:00 AM	#47
Iconoclast Breaker of Icons Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 1,797	Quote: Originally posted by CFLarsen Or Americans confusing Danes with Scandinavians.... What the hell is a Scandinavia anyway? I confess I have no idea. From Claus' post I guess Danelanders are part of it. Danelanders...
	__________________ A gun is not a weapon Marge, it's a tool, like a butcher knife or a harpoon or... ah... ah... an alligator. You just need more education on the subject. -- Homer Simpson

30th November 2004, 01:10 AM	#48
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Quote: Originally posted by Zep But if it was an Arab(-looking) guy, it would be a violation of his 4th Amendment rights? Tic tic tic... still waiting for an answer, Dicky.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

30th November 2004, 01:19 AM	#49
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Quote: Originally posted by Tony Quote: Originally posted by Zep Can I ask you: Do US citizens in the UK have US rights? Do you not have human rights just because you step outside the borders of your country? Sorry, that wasn't the question I asked, Tony. And although the question was addressed to Patrick, I'm happy to see another shot at it from you. But in answer to your sidetrack, obviously it is "Yes, you do have human rights". And do you then agree that these SAME basic human right should extend to nationals of ALL countries outside their borders? Say, for example, two Australian nationals (remember, Australia is one of your allies), one captured by the USA in Afghanistan and one kidnapped by the USA in Pakistan, and both still being held in violation of these rights in Gitmo? Hmmm? I look forward to your howls of outrage directed at these deprivers of human rights if you really mean what you say in your answer.
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

30th November 2004, 01:26 AM	#50
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985	Actually, I just read the Spectator article again, and I once again, could swear it was almost identical to the plot from a British cop-show. I just can't place the show or the episode...The Bill, perhaps?
Zep Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 26,985

30th November 2004, 03:46 AM	#51
Nikk Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,249	Quote: Originally posted by Jon_in_london Well, its not as if each and every search has to be specifically authrorised by a senior officer! The right to conduct Section 44 stops is granted for one month periods to certain boroughs/territories. All the stops are recorded by I dont think Blunkett actually reads through each one! Agreed of course. My objection is that these stop and searches amount to simple fishing expeditions with no realistic connection to turning up information relating to terrorism. S.44. 3 states... "Â_ Â_Â_Â_Â_(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism." Â_ Â_If the report is accurate a random search of one car in 25 had no realistic chance of turning up anything re terrorism. This would arguably be in breach of the act as there seems no reasonable cause to think that such a procedure would produce valuable information. The old sus laws caused plenty of problems in the past and the act seems to be reintroducing them by a back door route.
Nikk Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,249

30th November 2004, 04:36 AM	#52
Thanz Fuzzy Thinker Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centre of the Universe Posts: 3,850	Quote: Originally posted by Iconoclast What the hell is a Scandinavia anyway? I confess I have no idea. From Claus' post I guess Danelanders are part of it. Danelanders... I've always understood Scandanavia to be the region that includes Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. I don't think that it has any sort of official status, just a name for the region - like "Middle East".
	__________________ "I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- Yahzi

30th November 2004, 06:29 AM	#53
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,819	Quote: Originally posted by Zep But in answer to your sidetrack, obviously it is "Yes, you do have human rights". So national border are meaningless when it comes to rights, thank you. The rest of your post is non-relevant caca.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

30th November 2004, 06:42 AM	#54
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	Quote: Originally posted by Nikk If the report is accurate a random search of one car in 25 had no realistic chance of turning up anything re terrorism. This would arguably be in breach of the act as there seems no reasonable cause to think that such a procedure would produce valuable information. Well, it did catch this bloke, didn't it But according to the article: Quote: â€˜We are conducting random stop and search under current anti-terrorist legislation,â€™ began the constable, addressing me through my open side window. â€˜Would you mind if we searched your vehicle? Weâ€™re training these new community support officers.â€™ I interpreted that as meaning that the reason they were stopping-and-searching was not because they were actually working but because they were - as the copper said - training new officers using real people. They just happened to get lucky when they picked this shouty aggressive journalist.
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	__________________ Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.