The UK Gestapo


PDA






Zedicus
January 6, 2006, 03:04 AM
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=4692

UK EXPANDS POLICE POWERS
Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com

Police in the United Kingdom have now been authorized to arrest anyone at any time for any reason, according to the UK Telegraph. The new law, which took effect on January 1st, is being criticized for unleashing police powers without any restraint that will threaten the civil rights of all UK citizens.

Before the law changes, police were able to arrest suspects only if the police had reason to believe that the suspects were going to commit a crime punishable by at least five years of jail. Those restrictions have been dropped such that police can now arrest and detain anyone that they think might commit any type of crime. Police will still have to file a report explaining why they thought arresting someone was necessary.

The Home Office argues that an increase of police powers was needed in order to simplify the legal code, fight crime, and prevent terrorism. A civil liberties organization called Liberty has been actively resisting the change and is warning that a dramatic shift towards a police state will occur if measures arenít taken that prevent abuse.


staff reports - Free-Market News Network

(Emphasis Added)

Man I Feel sorry for the few friends I still have over there :(

If you enjoyed reading about "The UK Gestapo" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jeff White
January 6, 2006, 03:13 AM
Before the law changes, police were able to arrest suspects only if the police had reason to believe that the suspects were going to commit a crime punishable by at least five years of jail.

So there are no midemeanors or lower grade felonies in the UK? :confused:

Jeff

Zedicus
January 6, 2006, 03:16 AM
Not that I know of...

Old Dog
January 6, 2006, 03:22 AM
Huh? British police can arrest someone they think might commit a crime? I smell something bogus here.
This "news report" is so poorly worded I have trouble believing that it's actually legitimate ... Show me the law.

police were able to arrest suspects only if the police had reason to believe that the suspects were going to commit a crime punishable by at least five years of jail. Those restrictions have been dropped such that police can now arrest and detain anyone that they think might commit any type of crime.

Ryder
January 6, 2006, 03:29 AM
More discretion can be a good thing. I suspect your source may be biased. I read an article on this last week which didn't make it sound so Orwellian.

Sindawe
January 6, 2006, 03:59 AM
More discretion can be a good thing. I suspect your source may be biased. I read an article on this last week which didn't make it sound so Orwellian.Would you care for another glass of Kool-Aid Herr Ryder? :D

I suspect you and I both read the same article Ryder. That which I read was very subtle in its use of good-facts and true-speech so as to not unduly alarm the masses. But then, I AM a cynic by nature.CYNIC, n.
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.

Source: http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/

LAK
January 6, 2006, 04:12 AM
I have not read the Telegraph article yet, but offhand, the Telegraph, like the Guardian, is among the more conservative papers in the U.K. and a very long way from the tabloids.

Regardless of whether it is 100% accurate or 97%, none of this should be a surprize. This is where Comrade Blair's government and their cronies have been steering things, and look for it to migrate over here as long as we have cronies of the same political lineage in Washington DC at the helm.
------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedtstates.org

mzmtg
January 6, 2006, 08:35 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/29/narrest29.xml

odysseus
January 6, 2006, 08:48 AM
Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister, said: "It is vital that the police are equipped with the powers they need to enable them to do their jobs properly and effectively. The powers need to be updated to reflect modern policing priorities and the changing nature of criminal activity.

Have we heard something like this being said over on our end of the pond lately? Hmmm...

Socialism at work. AKA "We know what's better for you than you do." and "Your right for privacy and liberties don't mean anything in our new modern society". Sometimes I think that those tin-hatted people who claim this is the direction all governments eventually get to, might have some valid points.

The Drew
January 6, 2006, 08:53 AM
So now they can arrest thought criminals...

Maybe the question is, how long before this comes here?

joab
January 6, 2006, 08:54 AM
Police in the United Kingdom have now been authorized to arrest anyone at any time for any reasonFlorida recently passed a law giving anyone the right to shoot tourists for merely looking at them wrong or using threatening words.

Anyone have a link to the actual law

Janitor
January 6, 2006, 09:00 AM
But then, I AM a cynic by nature.
Pote-aa-toe ... Pote-ah-toe
Tom-aa-toe ... Tom-ah-toe
Cynic ... Questioner

Not a bad thing to be, imo. Especially when it comes to believing just how far sheeple can go in the attempt to deal with those 'outside the fold'.
-

ceetee
January 6, 2006, 09:09 AM
Florida recently passed a law giving anyone the right to shoot tourists for merely looking at them wrong or using threatening words.



I wish! :rolleyes:

(We used to have a slogan around here: "If this is "tourist season", why can't we shoot 'em?")

The law you're referring to is the "Stand Your Ground" law, where you have no absolute legal obligation to attempt to retreat before using force to defend yourself. It's not carte blanche to shoot tourists. No matter how slow they drive in the left lane of I-95.

joab
January 6, 2006, 09:14 AM
It's not carte blanche to shoot tourists. No matter how slow they drive in the left lane of I-95.That's my point.
The newspapers present the pro defense law in a negative light and everybody sees it as a lie.
The media writes a story about a law, in a country pretty much known IMHO for leniency towards criminals, giving total unrestrained powers of arrest to the police and everybody sees it as proof that the gestapo is alive and well.
Even though nobody has provided a link to the real wording of the law

Ryder
January 6, 2006, 09:38 AM
Maybe I better explain that discretion thing before my German heritage becomes too big of a concern here :D

I meant that in the way that zero tolerance is bad because it leaves people with no discretion. Now maybe the world has changed more than I was aware but aren't we are talking about English Bobbies? I wasn't aware they scared anybody.

I will try and paraphrase the other article (if anybody cares to correct me be my guest). Prior to the new law officers were forced to arrest everybody they suspected of a serious crime. This filled their court system with too many cases where the suspect got off due to tough standards of evidence. Now, (supposedly) the officers do not have to arrest anybody unless they believe there is enough evidence to get a conviction.

If true then they are trying to empower officers to think for themselves and get away from central control. If that's what they are doing I sure don't have a problem with that. As little faith as I have in people it's more than that which I have for a government.

armoredman
January 6, 2006, 09:52 AM
Airstrip One is sinking under the weight of Marxist hypocrisy. Hitler and Stalin are howling with laughter...the island they could not conquer has conqered itself...

TexasRifleman
January 6, 2006, 09:55 AM
Not a bad thing to be, imo. Especially when it comes to believing just how far sheeple can go in the attempt to deal with those 'outside the fold'.
-

Make no mistake, sheeple don't deal with anything at all that's what makes them sheeple. This is perpetrated by much more devious types. The sheeple won't even know it's happening.

BozemanMT
January 6, 2006, 11:31 AM
The Home Office argues that an increase of police powers was needed in order to simplify the legal code,

that makes it pretty simple
EVERYTHING is a crime.

Arrest them all, let someone else sort it out.

Sad, real sad.

carlrodd
January 6, 2006, 11:42 AM
i'll find a link for this in a minute but....my fiancee is from liverpool...rough city. i was listening to the radio there over christmas, and some government official in charge of whatever office goes after dead beat dads is pushing hard for tracking devices to be put into/onto these support skippers....bad, frightening idea, obviously. not to mention that many of their larger city centers are covered completely with cctv. it's scary, but go and visit sometime, and see the devastation wrought by the MASSIVE upswing in crime there and you might feel differently. don't forget as well, england is a small country, with no 'states' to fight against encroachments from the government. who knows what the answer is.

dolanp
January 6, 2006, 12:24 PM
Don't police pretty much have this discretion in the US?? I'd feel sorry for ourselves first.

TheEgg
January 6, 2006, 01:15 PM
Don't police pretty much have this discretion in the US?? I'd feel sorry for ourselves first.

This article makes it sound like the police can arrest anyone that they think MIGHT be going to commit a crime sometime in the future.

While the police in this country can arrest people for conspiracy (future crimes), they still have to have evidence that will get a judge to approve. The article implies that any such restraints are now removed from the UK police. I don't know if the article is true or not.

TrekkieFromHell
January 6, 2006, 03:27 PM
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=79521
British police will be able to arrest anyone for any criminal offence, including minor misdemeanours such as dropping litter, under new laws which come into force with the new year.

Until now police have had the power to arrest only those suspected of committing an offence carrying a sentence of at least five years in prison.

The new law requires only that the police have reasonable grounds for believing that a person's arrest is necessary. This can include a suspect's refusal to give their name and address.

The changes are part of the Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005, which removes the distinction between "arrestable" and "non-arrestable" offences.


Offences that have until now been non-arrestable include impersonating a police officer, not stopping a vehicle when ordered to do so and making or selling an offensive weapon.

Police will in future be allowed to photograph suspects on the street where they have been arrested or issued with a fixed penalty notice, rather than back at a police station.

"The introduction of a single rationalised power of arrest simplifies arrest powers," said Home Office minister Hazel Blears.

"These tough new powers make a significant contribution to creating a modern, efficient police service equipping frontline officers with the tools they need to fight modern crime effectively and keep our neighbourhoods safe."



Im going to try to find some more on this "Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005"

EDIT:
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/20050015.htm
I still need to find the area in it... but ya know, here it is :-p


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/50015--k.htm#110


24 Arrest without warrant: constables

(1) A constable may arrest without a warrant-

(a) anyone who is about to commit an offence;
(b) anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;
(c) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence;
(d) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.

.

24A Arrest without warrant: other persons

(1) A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant-

(a) anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.



EDIT: Copied and pasted the wrong areas... sorry about that
Hope everyone finds this useful to the post

joab
January 6, 2006, 06:50 PM
(a) anyone who is about to commit an offence;
(c) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence; Loitering with intent, we have that one here

(d) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.
We also have that here I believe it's called probable cause and citizen's arrest

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I don't see the sky falling
With a warrent people can be arrested on suspicion of committing crimes or conspiracy to commit crimes, no mention of what it takes to get the warrent.

Without a warrant people can be arrested for being seemingly in the process of committing a crime.
Cops in America operate under the same guidelines
Or would it be better if the good people ignored a crime in progress

CAnnoneer
January 6, 2006, 10:35 PM
"freedom died
under a round of applause"

Standing Wolf
January 6, 2006, 10:47 PM
Would someone please explain to me again why we squandered so many American lives saving England from the Germans?

drinks
January 6, 2006, 10:58 PM
Blears = Shrub?
:eek:

CAnnoneer
January 6, 2006, 11:08 PM
Would someone please explain to me again why we squandered so many American lives saving England from the Germans?

I'd say Churchill's England was worth fighting for. In contrast, I have severe doubts about Blair's.

beerslurpy
January 6, 2006, 11:20 PM
This sounds no worse than what we already have in the US.

Police can arrest you if:
-they have a warrant for your arrest
-they have probable cause that a crime is being committed in their prescence
-they catch you in the act of committing a crime
-if they beleive you committed a serious crime, in lieu of leaving and getting a warrant

Police have the discretion to arrest even during traffic stops. There was a supreme court case about this recently in 2004 or 2005. Avoiding punishment/lawsuits for abusing this discretion is another thing entirely.

I think the last bit goes too far, but the bits from the list are all pretty reasonable. They create a low burden on society, a low burden on individual liberty and any abuses are easy to correct, unless those abuses spring from bad laws that make too many people criminals.

Most of the current problems with policing in the US spring from the wide searching powers that derive from the war on drugs and the sea of strict liability laws that have arisen during the 20th century. If the police cant search you on flimsy pretenses and cant convict you for unnknowingly breaking the law, it is very difficult for them to abuse their crimefighting powers.

Ending the war on drugs and making the 4th amendment really mean something again would be a huge step in the right direction for this country and for liberty in general.

Byron Quick
January 7, 2006, 12:10 AM
What effects this will have depends upon the legal definition in Britain of 'reasonable grounds.'

If I see a young man with a shaven head is that reasonable grounds to arrest him? After all, he's obviously a racist skinhead and is about to commit a hate crime of some degree.

How about real short hair? He's obviously a skinhead attempting to disguise himself. He's up to no good. Surely all right thinking people will agree that he's guilty of mopery and dopery at the very least.

Mk VII
January 7, 2006, 08:18 AM
Would someone please explain to me again why we squandered so many American lives saving England from the Germans?

because FDR thought it was in the USA's wider interest that Great Britain should not lose the war and the Germans should not dominate the European continent.
Perhaps you'd have preferred to have been talking to the Nazi Party rather than the Soviets for the past sixty years. I get the impression several people around these boards feel America fought on the wrong side.
The remarkable sight of the cops leaving the Beltway Sniper's car in the middle of the road while they went off to get a warrant to search it wouldn't have happened here, even before this.

iapetus
January 7, 2006, 03:43 PM
I think people/ the original article have misunderstood the law.

It is not allowing the police to arrest anyone, for any reason, on the grounds that you might commit a crime in the future.

Remained of the post deleted because some of what I said was incorrect, and Agricola has explained the whole thing better than I did/could have.


Btw,

I have not read the Telegraph article yet, but offhand, the Telegraph, like the Guardian, is among the more conservative papers in the U.K. and a very long way from the tabloids.


The Guardian (aka "Grauniad", on account of their tendency to make spelling errors) is very leftwing (except perhaps in the eyes of some of the posters on the politics section of Guardian Talk (www.guardian.co.uk/talk)forum, but they're pretty much the UK equivalent of the DU).

The Telegraph is conservative (and Conservative - hence often referred to as the "Torygraph" or "Thatchergraph"), with a somewhat libertarian tendency (depending on how well they can condemn the government on such grounds).

TrekkieFromHell
January 7, 2006, 04:06 PM
Without a warrant people can be arrested for being seemingly in the process of committing a crime.
Cops in America operate under the same guidelines
Or would it be better if the good people ignored a crime in progress

However joab, all offences over there are now arrestable offences. ANYTHING you do wrong, no matter how minor can now get you cuffed and thrown into the police car.


EDIT: Spelling, Punctuation

I mean, say you accidentally drop something on the ground and don't notice. Now you are littering, and they can arrest you. Its just way too much power to give to police.

agricola
January 7, 2006, 04:23 PM
Its a typical misstatement by a Press seeking to make an issue out of nothing, and its been taken up by the usual idiots here to make their usual, utterly wrong, points.

An explanation:

Before this legislation came in - legislation which had been through Parliament for at least a year prior to it coming in (so you think the Press might have noticed, especially as its been mentioned repeatedly by various politicians) - the situation was that there were several "powers of arrest" based on the Police and Criminal Act 1984.

Section 24 said that, basically, any offence where the sentence was five years or more, or where there was no maximum sentence (eg life sentence), or where the sentence was fixed by law (eg murder) was an arrestable offence.

Section 25 said that you could be arrested for ANY offence (including littering) if one of the following conditions applied:

These conditions are as follows:
(1) They cannot establish your name or they think you have given a false one, OR
(2) They cannot establish an address suitable for the service of a summons or they think you have given a false one, OR
(3) They have reasonable grounds to believe arrest is necessary to prevent you from doing any of the following:
(i) causing physical injury to yourself or any other person, OR
(ii) suffering physical injury; OR
(iii) causing loss of or damage to property; OR
(iv) committing an offence against public decency, OR
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway.

Section 26 contained a list of offences which had their own power of arrest contained within the legislation, like begging, indecent exposure etc.

This was the state of play since the end of the common law / sus powers which had been sort of unchanged since the inception of the Police in the 1820s.

What SOCAP has done is removed section 24 and almost all of section 26 and instead unified all the powers of arrest under an expanded section 25, adding two powers allowing arrest in order to effectively investigate an offence and if there are reasonable grounds to suspect the perp would not attend court if dealt with there and then.

So in short you still need an offence, or suspicion of an offence, to have taken place or be suspected of imminently taken place. You have to have one of the section 25 grounds or believe an arrest is necessary to effectively investigate the offence or have reasonable grounds to suspect that the perp wont attend Court if dealt with by way of ticket or summons. YOU CANNOT BE ARRESTED ON PSYCHIC GROUNDS AS THE ARTICLE SUGGESTS.

The bulk of the legislation hasnt changed since PACE came in as long ago as 1984; and the parts that have changed have been announced and debated well in advance. Sloppy, scaremongering journalism is unacceptable normally but even more so in this case - reading the Torygraph and its kin you would think that HMG dropped this on people as they woke up on January 1st...

:uhoh:

Mk VII
January 7, 2006, 04:34 PM
I'm waiting for the Silly & Disorganised Crime Act. Where they all run into the bank dressed as clowns, and assault the cashier with a squirting buttonhole

joab
January 7, 2006, 07:16 PM
However joab, all offences over there are now arrestable offences. ANYTHING you do wrong, no matter how minor can now get you cuffed and thrown into the police car.I must have missed that section of the law. Could you point it out?

Jeff White
January 7, 2006, 07:28 PM
TrekkieFromHell said;
However joab, all offences over there are now arrestable offences. ANYTHING you do wrong, no matter how minor can now get you cuffed and thrown into the police car.

I hate to bust up a good UK bashing thread, but it's been that way here in the US for a lot longer then I've been a peace officer. Posting bond at the side of the road or signing a promise to appear on a citation is simply a courtesy in most states. And it's totally up to the officer's discretion. If I wanted to I could take almost everyone I gave a citation to the county jail and make them post bond or issue a notice to appear there.

Jeff

TrekkieFromHell
January 8, 2006, 03:58 AM
I must have missed that section of the law. Could you point it out?

Well Agricola seems to have summed it up nicely by finding that area for his post

Section 25 said that you could be arrested for ANY offence (including littering) if one of the following conditions applied:

These conditions are as follows:
(1) They cannot establish your name or they think you have given a false one, OR
(2) They cannot establish an address suitable for the service of a summons or they think you have given a false one, OR
(3) They have reasonable grounds to believe arrest is necessary to prevent you from doing any of the following:
(i) causing physical injury to yourself or any other person, OR
(ii) suffering physical injury; OR
(iii) causing loss of or damage to property; OR
(iv) committing an offence against public decency, OR
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway.
Granted they have to meet one of those conditions but its pretty easy to make some ???? up if they happen to not like your attitude or something.

Duncaninfrance
January 8, 2006, 04:59 AM
Some of you should put your mind in drive before your tongues are in motion in my opinion.
I am English and very proud of it. Comments such as those made by Standing Wolf are offensive to me and I would think, many Americans. The truth is that it is because the people of this country stood up to people like the Germans in 1914 ( not 1917 ) and were bled dry and again in 1939 ( not 1941 ) and were bombed out, as well as the Japs, the Koreans, the Arabs, the Argentinians, AND Sadam and many other non democratic countries that the Free people of the world can say they are Free.

Law and order is just that - LAW and ORDER and the people who wish to flaunt the law should be punnished. At the moment too many get away with things on a 'technicality' and that is not acceptable to me. If you are not breaking the law then you should not be afraid.
Going through this thread you would think that every policeman would send all day arresting people for having the wrong shoes on or not wearing a hat!
Get real.
The biggest problem in the UK is too many police stopping motorists for minor traffic offences and not enough police cracking down on real crime like drugs, illegal immigration and fraud.

Well thats that off my chest - have a nice day;)

joab
January 8, 2006, 06:49 AM
its pretty easy to make some ???? upWell at least you prove that part of your argument.

These conditions are as follows:
(1) They cannot establish your name or they think you have given a false one, OR
(2) They cannot establish an address suitable for the service of a summons or they think you have given a false one, OR
(3) They have reasonable grounds to believe arrest is necessary to prevent you from doing any of the following:
(i) causing physical injury to yourself or any other person, OR
(ii) suffering physical injury; OR
(iii) causing loss of or damage to property; OR
(iv) committing an offence against public decency, OR
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway.
Doesn't eactly match up with
, all offences over there are now arrestable offences. ANYTHING you do wrong, no matter how minor can now get you cuffed and thrown into the police car.
I guess I just don't understand all the modern day Nazis hunting and conspiracy mongering. It just seems rather DU-ish to me.

joab
January 8, 2006, 06:54 AM
Going through this thread you would think that every policeman would send all day arresting people for having the wrong shoes on or not wearing a hat!Come on Duncan. Shoes are a matter of personal preference, but not wearing a hat is just wrong.

The biggest problem in the UK is too many police stopping motorists for minor traffic offences and not enough police cracking down on real crime like drugs, illegal immigration and fraud.
I've heard that of another country recently

iapetus
January 8, 2006, 09:17 AM
Anyway, is it really that bad that someone can be arrested for any crime?

Isn't that the point of making something a crime in the first place?

If you think that people shouldn't be arrested for doing x, isn't the issue that x shouldn't be a crime in the first place?

joab
January 8, 2006, 09:36 AM
iapetus
That's a theory that I can agree with

Cosmoline
January 8, 2006, 01:29 PM
The UK hasn't been a free nation for a long time. A nation that enacts UK style gun control cannot be free, by definition. The civilians are considered sheep there.

Logistics
January 10, 2006, 02:32 AM
>>>If you are not breaking the law then you should not be afraid.<<<

Spare us please.

dasmi
January 10, 2006, 02:41 AM
The Home Office argues that an increase of police powers was needed in order to simplify the legal code, fight crime, and prevent terrorism.

Wait for it...there it is! "...and prevent terrorism."

LAK
January 10, 2006, 04:04 AM
The Guardian (aka "Grauniad", on account of their tendency to make spelling errors) is very leftwing (except perhaps in the eyes of some of the posters on the politics section of Guardian Talk (www.guardian.co.uk/talk)forum, but they're pretty much the UK equivalent of the DU).

The Telegraph is conservative (and Conservative - hence often referred to as the "Torygraph" or "Thatchergraph"), with a somewhat libertarian tendency (depending on how well they can condemn the government on such grounds).
The Telegraph, and the Guardian are two of the more conservative papers published in the U.K.

I am and have been very familiar with both over a period of more than 30 years. The Guardian in particular has run some very good coverage on gun issues, and in the last few years the Tony Martin case. In fact the Guardian was one of the only papers that fairly covered and ran a continuing number of articles about the Martin case. And the editorial style on that subject was far away ffrom being "leftwing".

A certain so-called "conservative" talkshow host uttered this rubbish on air one day that the Guardian was "leftwing"; IIRC because it ran some articles critical of Comrade Blair's and Comrade Bush's invasion of Iraq.
--------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

joab
January 10, 2006, 08:43 AM
A certain so-called "conservative" talkshow host uttered this rubbish on air one day that the Guardian was "leftwing"; IIRC because it ran some articles critical of Comrade Blair's and Comrade Bush's invasion of Iraq.:rolleyes:

Mk VII
January 10, 2006, 04:25 PM
never heard the Grauniad described as 'conservative' before. 'Guardian reader' is the nearest British translation of 'liberal'

LAK
January 11, 2006, 04:27 AM
:rolleyes:
Rolled eyes is very appropriate; since what is looked upon as "conservative" as opposed to socialist or marxist seems more dependent these days on supporting perverted political agendas and the stars of the show - as opposed to actual substance of conservative principle put in action.

It is not mere coincidence that Comrade Bush and Comrade Blair are such close pals these days.
-------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK
January 11, 2006, 04:34 AM
never heard the Grauniad described as 'conservative' before. 'Guardian reader' is the nearest British translation of 'liberal'
Run "Tony Martin" in the Guardian archives. Read the extensive series of articles they ran about his case. Then compare with all the other papers and news transcripts, as well as some of the so-called "conservative" opposition party input on the subject. See how many "conservatives" even opened their mouths once to defend Mr Martin - let alone any of Comrade Blair's party or the Liberal Democrats.

----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Duncaninfrance
January 11, 2006, 04:46 AM
So how can you tell when a politician is lying?

THEIR MOUTHS ARE OPEN!

Duncan:cuss:

joab
January 11, 2006, 08:03 AM
It is not mere coincidence that Comrade Bush and Comrade Blair are such close pals these days.:rolleyes:
Appropriate for third grade ,credibility diminishing, name calling from somebody who sees the Guardian as anything but a second rate Enquirer type newspaper with less integrity and worse writers.

In the future why not just say "I hate Bush and Blair" in big two inch script and let that be the entire body of your post. Everything else is lost to the Comrade and/or Nazi references anyway

Iain
January 11, 2006, 08:16 AM
Run "Tony Martin" in the Guardian archives. Read the extensive series of articles they ran about his case. Then compare with all the other papers and news transcripts, as well as some of the so-called "conservative" opposition party input on the subject. See how many "conservatives" even opened their mouths once to defend Mr Martin - let alone any of Comrade Blair's party or the Liberal Democrats.

There is a good reason why lots of "conservative" newspapers and the like failed to defend Mr Martin after the full facts of the case came out.

If we're going to use these labels then I would generally consider it accurate to refer to the Guardian as not being conservative.

LAK
January 12, 2006, 04:19 AM
I:rolleyes:
Appropriate for third grade ,credibility diminishing, name calling from somebody who sees the Guardian as anything but a second rate Enquirer type newspaper with less integrity and worse writers.

In the future why not just say "I hate Bush and Blair" in big two inch script and let that be the entire body of your post. Everything else is lost to the Comrade and/or Nazi references anyway
Credibility? George W Bush - like his father, like Tony Blair, and every one of their stinking cronies - is a global socialist.

That equals; no credibility. He has none. Unless you think socialism has some redeeming quality that conservatives everywhere are unaware of and need to know about.

His position? The Office? If it is soiled, it is by fraudulent representation. Bill Clinton was no different in this regard, but at least he did not attempt to masquerade as a conservative. There is no provision in the Constitution for the highest ranking official in the Executive branch to engage us in a global socialist agenda - or allow us to remain there.

That set the matter straight for you?
---------------------------------------

Http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK
January 12, 2006, 04:32 AM
There is a good reason why lots of "conservative" newspapers and the like failed to defend Mr Martin after the full facts of the case came out.

If we're going to use these labels then I would generally consider it accurate to refer to the Guardian as not being conservative.
I followed the Martin story to the end, including the facts - in so far as they were made public. It is ongoing, and it is a relevant and substantial enough issue to cover in another thread. There was no good reason to abandon Tony Martin. Those "conservatives" did so under under intense pressure from their party leadership - which seems to be terminally infected with the same disease introduced into our own here in the United States. It's called;

SOLD.

And while Comrade Blair's government - and police - are increasingly empowered - the Tony Martin's are being imprisoned.

-----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

joab
January 12, 2006, 04:52 AM
That equals; no credibility. He has none. RIF.
Bush and Blair are not the ones using the playground book of third grade name calling here, you are.
I was speaking of your credibility

There is a feature here that allows you to change the size of the script in your post

If you simply increase the size to the highest level ans simply write
"I hate the George Bushs and everything is their fault"
It would take up the same amount of space and save us the trouble of reading through the drivel and hyperbole to get the exact same message.

Don't bother responding, you're now on the redundant list

LAK
January 12, 2006, 06:22 AM
Ah, a personal attack. Quite honestly, I really couldn't care less what you personally think of me.

So are you going to redecorate, redefine or refute what precisely the two Comrades are themselves, in political terms? I would really like to see that.

They are both on record publically as having stated what they have been and are doing - openly. This in the domestic poltical sphere and international forums. Blair is going three terms over the pond; I wonder who is going to replace his junior partner comrade George in their fraudulent agenda for "prosperity and peace in every land"? Global peace and prosperity, eh?

"Name calling"? That's amusing. It has and does come from their own actions, inactions and words from their own stinking mouths. It is recorded in publicly archived documents, and official government speech transcripts - in addition to press releases and press reports.

-------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK
January 12, 2006, 07:29 AM
For those interested in the net effect of the ever increasingly empowered British government and police - and the diminished rights of an Englishman; the Guardian's coverage of the Tony Martin story can be accessed here including all previous articles (The Guardian actually archives all it's stories online with free access):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/0,2759,214318,00.html

Now, comparatively speaking - bearing in mind that socialism is even more rife in "conservative" circles in the U.K. than in than in the U.S. - which is a real trash liberal tabloid;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/
http://www.mirror.co.uk

Compare. You decide.
---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

agricola
January 12, 2006, 10:49 AM
I followed the Martin story to the end, including the facts - in so far as they were made public. It is ongoing, and it is a relevant and substantial enough issue to cover in another thread. There was no good reason to abandon Tony Martin. Those "conservatives" did so under under intense pressure from their party leadership - which seems to be terminally infected with the same disease introduced into our own here in the United States. It's called;

SOLD.

And while Comrade Blair's government - and police - are increasingly empowered - the Tony Martin's are being imprisoned.
]

There was entirely good reason to abandon Tony Martin - his defence case was manifestly lies, as a trial jury and the Appeal Court found. If what Martin had said was the truth, he would not have been convicted as there are a great many (strangely unpublished!) cases where people have not even been charged, let alone convicted. The difference of course is these people defended themselves, instead of lying in wait (after telling as many people as he could that he would kill the next trespassers he found), ambushing burglars with a gun that was both illegal and illegally held (his guns had been taken off him after several incidents - shooting at apple scrumpers, shooting his neighbours windows out after a dispute etc) and then fleeing the scene.

You also demonstrate a lack of understanding because the Conservatives have consistently backed, if not Tony Martin, then the hype that sprung up around his case, to the extent of two failed PMB's on the issue. They also have very little influence over even those papers that follow a conservative (small c) line.

These Private Members Bills died because a) noone, including the Tory leader at the time, was able to point to anyone who has actually been convicted under the current legislation who would not be under the proposed one (or for that matter anyone who had been convicted for defending themselves) and the CPS was able to restate the state of the law in this area.

Iain
January 12, 2006, 02:25 PM
I'd add that the Guardian article I read the other day, on your advice LAK, wasn't exactly supportive of Martin. Unless you count dwelling on his marriage links to founders of the (racist) National Front, and allegations of his support for the (racist) British National Party, as being supportive.

Zedicus
January 12, 2006, 07:39 PM
Moderator, I think it may be time to end this descussion, it is simply turning into a flamefest.:fire:

joab
January 12, 2006, 07:58 PM
It began as an unresearched flame fest, why stop it now?

agricola
January 12, 2006, 08:33 PM
Moderator, I think it may be time to end this descussion, it is simply turning into a flamefest.:fire:

its hardly flaming to bring your latest fib down.

asiparks
January 12, 2006, 08:43 PM
The Guardian is editorially left of centre, you might not like what you read in it, but the stories are invariably well researched and well fact checked. In fact, with the exception of The Independant, between all the papers, Sunday Sport through Sunday Times, they probably offer the least coloured coverage of current events

All it needs is a page 3.....

If you enjoyed reading about "The UK Gestapo" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!