Actual Police State

There is a need to tackle some 'non-crimes'. For example, those who are plotting some nefarious act of terror before the deed is actually committed - though I personally class that plotting as treasonous behaviour against the citizenry (or their representatives) and thus criminal.

Obviously, that the police and security services do tackle such nonsense so effectively is a mark of competence, professionalism and deserves praise.
 
Last edited:
RxR said:
There is a need to tackle some 'non-crimes'. For example, those who are plotting some nefarious act of terror before the deed is actually committed - though I personally class that plotting as treasonous behaviour against the citizenry (or their representatives) and thus criminal.

Obviously, that the police and security services do tackle such nonsense so effectively is a mark of competence, professionalism and deserves praise.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about non-crimes.
So, speech is not a crime, even if it against the law in this country.
If someone were to say, "i wish there would be a terrorists attack against such and such a target", then that is not a crime.
If someone starts to make physical preparations to commit an attack, then that would be a crime.
Saying, "men cannot change into women", is not a crime, and yet the police are visiting the homes of people who have said that very thing.
There is no such thing as "hate crime", and yet there are hate crime laws.

If there was a "scale of police states" with at one end a state whose police were not politicised, and therefore only tackled crime, and at the other end a state in which the police enforced the will of the government to the extent that non-crimes were tackled, then we would maybe be at 10% or 20%. I don't know what other people think about that.

This can be tested.
In Saudi, if a man were to say in public, "Muhammad was a paedo", then would he be arrested? Yes? Then it's a police state to at least some degree.
In North Korea, can a man say, "Kim Jong Un is a big poopy pants"? No, he can't. It's a police state.
In the UK, can a person say, "men cannot become women and I think Islam is crap so we shouldn't import Muslims"? No? Then we live in a police state to some degree.

If a country wants to create a socialist state, or fascist state, or globalist state, then it necessitates the creation of a police force which is tasked with removing opposition to the plan, because some or most of the people will not support it.
The idealism of the British Government, and that of the EU, is globalism, which is why our police and institutions have been corrupted to facilitate the destruction of the nation in favour of being a province in a larger globalist state.
About 10 people per day in the UK are being arrested for merely saying things.
Perhaps the highest profile case was that of Count Dankula, who was arrested, charged and convicted for making a joke.
He committed no crime, and there was not even a complaint made over his joke. The police had to manufacture a complaint in order to justify the arrest.
There was a young woman in Liverpool who posted some rap lyrics in tribute to a friend who had died.
The police had to get one of their own officers to make the complaint, in order to secure justification for the arrest.

Once a country starts to go down the route of creating a police state, it must be nipped in the bud, because an authoritarian government always wants more power, not less.
 
Excess in representative democracies historically gets remedied. I don't see the degree of relevance of autocracies such as Korea to life in a Westminster system of government.

In addition, science has found increased error in leaders who have uncritical supporters.

e: Does it weaken your argument that since you are a critic in what you believe to be a police state, criticising that apparent state of affairs, that you haven't been charged or locked up yet for doing so?
 
RxR said:
Excess in representative democracies historically gets remedied. I don't see the degree of relevance of autocracies such as Korea to life in a Westminster system of government.

In addition, science has found increased error in leaders who have uncritical supporters.

e: Does it weaken your argument that since you are a critic in what you believe to be a police state, criticising that apparent state of affairs, that you haven't been charged or locked up yet for doing so?
Click to expand...
I've never gone on social media and said "men can't be women" or "I don't think that we should import Muslims."

I'm self-censoring, which is exactly what we are supposed to do.

A couple of years ago, a man in Surrey said on Twitter, something hurty about women in burkas.
The police kicked down his door and ransacked his house. Broke a load of his stuff.
He was subsequently found not guilty.
Sounds good, right? The system worked?
Wrong.
What was done here was to show the population what they can expect to happen if they say something which they shouldn't be saying.
Even if a person is found not guilty, he still doesn't want his house to be ransacked, his possessions to be broken, and his computer, containing all the nudie pics of his wife with a cucumber up her arse, to be carted off for forensic inspection.
It's rule by fear.

In South Yorkshire, the police are asking people to report "non-hate incidents", which means reporting when they are offended by someone. The police then visit the home of the "offender", and warn them against saying hurty things.
No one wants a visit from the police, so the effect is that people self-censor.
It's to get people used to having to second-think everything they say.
The communists employed this tactic, as did the fascists.

How do you rule over a population using fear, without being able to post armed men on the streets, or going to the expense of an enormous plain-clothed force?
Exactly in this way.
 
I'm wondering if the examples you refer to actually happened as you describe. They sound somewhat odd.
 
RxR said:
Excess in representative democracies historically gets remedied. I don't see the degree of relevance of autocracies such as Korea to life in a Westminster system of government.
Click to expand...
This is why we have the mix of representative (general elections) and direct democracy (referendums).

On the one hand, representative democracy prevents the people from voting for a free million pounds each, and on the other hand, direct democracy prevents the government from taking us down the road to dictatorship.

In our current situation, people elected through representative democracy are blocking direct democracy.
 
RxR said:
I'm wondering if the examples you refer to actually happened as you describe. They sound somewhat odd.
Click to expand...
They would sound odd to a person who believes that we are governed by a benign entity, or to a person who wished to cover up the whole thing.
To someone who knows what is going on, they don't sound odd at all.
It's pure clownworld stuff, but it's not odd.

Just look at what happened with Tommy Robinson. There's the "official version", designed for general consumption, to make people believe that he's an evil bigot racist nazi, then there's what really happened, which shows the corruption of our police and judiciary.

"But it can't happen in this country" sounds like famous last words.
 
I don't reside in Britain. However, I doubt it has degraded to a "clownworld" since my last visit. I cite the evidence of the robust common sense of the majority of British posters on the OcUk forum.
 
RxR said:
I don't reside in Britain. However, I doubt it has degraded to a "clownworld" since my last visit. I cite the evidence of the robust common sense of the majority of British posters on the OcUk forum.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't know about the posters here, but they should not be taken as representative.
You'll find "clownworld" to exist in many countries: UK, USA, Sweden, Germany, Australia, etc, all to varying degrees.
 
vanillaface said:
If you had an enquiring mind, then when you read about something, you'd go off to research the matter for yourself.
There's a risk attached, which is that you might not like what you find.
Click to expand...

"Clownworld". I missed that. Another square marked off the bull**** bingo card.

This guy's in deep.
 
vanilla face, what evidence do you concede would count against your conspiracy theory?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom