1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How did the UK become totalitarian police state?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Paul_cz, Dec 13, 2018.

  1. Paul_cz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 1, 2009

    Posts: 2,335

  2. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 18,083

    She won on appeal recently, quoting a spiked article is uncouth mind you.

    You could at least attempt to find more recent news, before dredging up a Koch publication with clear anti-commons motives.
     
  3. Paul_cz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 1, 2009

    Posts: 2,335

    What I find uncouth is doing this guilt by association thing where instead of addressing content of the article, it gets automatically dismissed because it is "wrong". Note that I personally do not know spiked, I found the article posted on twitter by someone and thought it was frankly insane that someone can get even in court for posting music lyrics on instagram. The fact that it got appealed is pheeeeeeew but if I was living in UK I would be freaking livid that this stuff is even punishable by law in the first place. It is the kind of stuff that makes communist of old in my country giddy.
     
  4. efish

    Hitman

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 944

    I don't think their is any question the laws here need changed. The terrible example you gave at the start followed by the poorly written melodramatic outrage article by spiked is not helpful.

    The title to you're post which seeks to lead the reader to believe the U.K. is without question a totalitarian police state would I suspect make the old communists in you're country very happy.

    Framed as a question but the trick would be to have the answer already prepared, with a series of dubious examples to support the point.

    A tactic that would make you're older citizens glow with pride.
     
  5. TheVoice

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 20,479

    Location: Glasgow

    In certain cities, yes. In many others they're plugging the gaps for RPU who are in-turn plugging the gaps for response. In rural force areas you might only have a couple of ARVs covering an entire county.

    We still aren't back to the number of AFOs there were in 2010, yet assaults on police are on the rise as are the numbers of firearms offences and firearms operations.
     
  6. efish

    Hitman

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 944

    Not as familiar with the issues but the problems you describe look like issues related to funding. We want a well funded and well trained police force and we expect officers to perform to the highest standards but we don't want to pay for it.
     
  7. Paul_cz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 1, 2009

    Posts: 2,335

    Have you ever heard of the term hyperbole?

    Not that this hyperbole is all that huge, given the some of the laws your government apparently upholds and enforces.
     
  8. efish

    Hitman

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 944

    Yes. Its a common term used in English. As 'teaching you're grandmother to suck eggs' is a common expression, which given you're excellent grasp of English I am sure you are familiar with.

    p.s. in regard to you're opening post and you're horror that in the u.k that convicted drug dealers are not allowed to roam the streets tooled up with tasers/ knifes/ handguns/ or whatever and may for some unfathomable reason end up in prison instead.

    Contrary to you're imagination the U.K is not one legal entity nor does it share a uniform policing policy.

    Try googling for V.R.U. (violence reduction unit) for example. No doubt it will be horrifying wrong for some reason or other (you have a wider political agenda clearly and need to stick to the script) but it does suggest that their may be more to policing and the prevention of violence than Inspector Knacker of the yard and his jackbooted henchmen, kicking you're door in taking all you're knives and chickens away and then burning down you're hovel.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2019
  9. Colonel_Klinck

    Hitman

    Joined: Oct 3, 2007

    Posts: 595

    Location: London, UK

    The guy who owned my house before we bought it imported a stun gun from the US and had it delivered to his work. Unsurprisingly the old bill turned up undercover with it, arrested him, he got the sack and I think he got 5 years. His missus divorced him and sold the house to us.
     
  10. efish

    Hitman

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 944

    You should google and check what he got, they are commonly reported. I think if you do not have a criminal record or other mitigating circumstances, family, kids etc, you can get away with a suspended sentence. People certainly have.

    It's the relationship they have with muggings and a spike in police finding them while searching for other things/ drugs/ stolen goods etc. that lead to them being made illegal.
    The max. you can get is high as if it carried a lighter sentence than what you get for a knife or gun offense, it would become the go to weapon of choice for career criminals.
    Like in the 80's when some dope smugglers realized that smuggling a boat load of cigarette lighters from Spain and not paying v.a.t carried a far lesser sentence than a boat filled with dope.
    V.A.T fraud became popular for risk averse smugglers and the profits could be in the same ball park as more risky enterprises.
     
  11. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,787

    Location: Vvardenfell


    Er no - stun guns are section 5 firearms. People are thus sentenced as being in possession of a firearm. They were made illegal a VERY long time ago. But it is true that generally the people who buy them are criminals.
     
  12. efish

    Hitman

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 944

    2001. Yes people are sentenced for being in possession of a firearm.

    I have not a clue what you are disagreeing with, I can't makes sense out of what you are saying I presume you have not bothered to read what happened "a very long time ago".

    Use in muggings, death of a postal worker who was attacked and a rise in police noting the presence of the weapons while conducting searches for unrelated crimes were all factors leading to the change in the law.

    Was also a concern if the legislation did not make it as serious as gun crime it would become the go to weapon of choice of criminals.

    p.s 2001 is the latest legislation they are covered under. You are correct to note its 1968 fire arms offenses act and specifically a law from 1920, which makes it illegal to use a gun to deliver "a noxious chemical."

    Pre- existing legislation is used. Although things like mace, pepper spray, stun guns etc. are classified as such retrospectively.

    Growing use in crime ( muggings and attacks) and the growing evidence from police (finding them more in the homes of suspected criminals) formed part of the evidence base which ensured the later legal classification.

    An older law is used as its general enough to cover, stun guns, mace etc. and avoids the need to have to draft and make law, new legal language.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2019
  13. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,787

    Location: Vvardenfell


    You've just pointed out that the 1920 law bans pepper sprays etc, so I'm struggling to work out why this is retrospective? They point I am trying to make is that interpretation of the law comes from the Courts, not the Police.
     
  14. efish

    Hitman

    Joined: Jan 11, 2014

    Posts: 944

    The interpretation of the law comes from the courts, that interpretation is based on evidence in this case in part from the police i.e stun guns got flagged due to a growing relationship with crime.

    I am not sure where I made this horrifying error. A lack of clarity perhaps but that is not how you framed you're response, not an expert but I took the time to read a few academic surveys of the criminal history before making my comment.

    I also did not cite the most commonly used explanation that comes from the Guardian 'stun guns were made illegal after an attack on a postal worker' as I could not find any other references.

    I took a reasonable amount of care, so was somewhat surprised by you're own judgment.

    The 1920's law is the first legal precedent it makes a 'firearm which delivers a noxious chemical' illegal.

    If glue guns were made illegal at some point in the future, the 1920's law would form the precedent to make them illegal. If the courts had of course no contemporary evidence showing a relationship between glue guns and crime, it would look somewhat stupid.

    In relationship with the title of the post and the 'evidence' used to support its assertion, its the stun guns relationship with crime and a growing body of evidence that associated it with crime that lead to its contemporary illicit nature.

    Was the point I was trying to make.
     
  15. C64

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 16, 2007

    Posts: 12,169

    Location: London

    absoltely yes they are left winger blairites
     
  16. Paul_cz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 1, 2009

    Posts: 2,335

  17. Panos

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Nov 22, 2009

    Posts: 9,419

    Location: NE Lincolnshire

    And this one my friend

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...orters-without-borders-us-italy-a8875771.html

    I do wonder how after coverage of Syria, Ukraine, Skirpal, Integrity Institute (or lack of coverage of the leaks showing all journalists are involved) and Assange running for years, still UK is 33rd and not down with the US at 48th places. And lets not forget the various girl abuse rings where the media are prohibited to report until the very end, if at all. Just in case people protest.

    Yet the majority on the island finds that perfectly right!!!!!!!

    Hence said numerous times, lack of history knowledge allows to do the same mistakes the Germans did in the 1930s. A totalitarian state is grabbing over people's freedoms slowly in the name of it's security.
     
  18. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 18,083

    Uhh it’s called trial prejudice, they aren’t supposed to report on it so it can go unhindered, elsewise it could collapse.

    Man realising the uk was a racist ******** you must have made you real bitter.
     
  19. Panos

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Nov 22, 2009

    Posts: 9,419

    Location: NE Lincolnshire

    Regardless what is called, when you have your own colleague's child involved, and you see him daily getting changed from a happy person to a wreck, keeping his job due to the company's "charity" you will change your view. Having to deal with a Police and Local Services completely unable to help, then you talk about "trial prejudice". The day yourself as parent have to deal with this, lets talk again. And no I do not wish it to your child or any other child mate.

    And you stood only on that part of my post. Completely dismissing the remaining and including the article, trying to prove that I am bitter person? You should understand one of the first steps of fascism, is to indoctrinate into the population the idea that if you cannot counter an argument, try to assassinate the character of the other party involved in the discussion. We see it also on the campaign of the Integrity Institute against Corbyn for years now. Let alone others like Trump?

    Why there are no articles in the UK media, that US even went to the step ban the visit visa of the head of the ICC when the later was doing investigations of the US & UK crimes in Syria, Afghanistan & Iraq?
    Demanding that all investigation should be dropped and the "West" especially the US is out, and above, of the jurisdiction of the ICC? (and this is couple of weeks old news).
    The same ICC the controlled UK media praise when they find some of their "enemies" like Karadzic guilty. Do you know exactly who was Karadzic and what he was actually fought and accused for?
    Do you have an idea what is happening in Bosnia-Herzegovina today or Kosovo? Yet you killed thousands of people, and still keeping killing more due to the weapons (chemical and nuclear) used against Serbia, 20 years later. Why the hypocrisy and double standards?
     
  20. Paul_cz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Feb 1, 2009

    Posts: 2,335

    I see this happening constantly...everyone labeling people with "inconvenient" opinions, often projecting. Utterly disgusting tactics.