England really is a police state

[White Horseradish]

i) questions are not asked about the HIV status of a prisoner being booked in;

ii) Charing Cross Police Station's cells do not have wooden benches;

OMG! He got the benches wrong! Well, that just totally ruins a man's credibility.

That's just silly nitpicking.

iii) "public order breach of the peace" is not an offence - the area was not in public (so no public order), and a breach of the peace allows Police to detain someone for the next Court if the breach is ongoing, or likely to restart if the person is released. That does not appear to be the case here, and so one would imagine if what he says is true, a payout for false imprisonment will be forthcoming.

iv) all of the custody area is on CCTV, so if the serious allegations that this person has made - assault by the constable, the constable swearing at him - will be on tape and the solicitor would already have a copy;

That may well be. Or, the tape could be blank. At any rate, the main thing wrong with this occurrence is that he was detained for a penknife. You are not mentioning that at all. Do you think that actually makes sense?

As for the whole issue with regards to stops and searches under the Terrorism Act, well thats one of the consequences of having had bombs going off for the past thirty-five years.

I'm sure penknives and sticks are integral components of those bombs...

 

[agricola]

white horseradish,

Those who lie about little things are usually lying about the greater picture as well. also, there is a difference between the copy of the tape provided to the solicitors (which will be just the record of the interview) and the CCTV tape of the custody area. if what he alleges happened, it will be on the CCTV.

I used to work at Charing Cross Police Station and I know many of the officers that work there; that story does not ring true at all to me.

Further to that, he was not detained for the possession of a penknife - he was detained for it having a lockable blade, and for possession of the collapsible baton. as oneshooter says, the population of the UK chose how are laws are framed (after all, this is a democracy), so its up to us and is none of your concern, frankly.

as for "stops under the Terrorism Act", I can think of at least three occasions where such stops have led to the discovery of IRA cells on their way to kill a great deal of people.

 

[cpileri]

I disagree

A point was raised that the British have got it the way they want it.

Comparing them to our situation here int he USA, I have to doubt it.

I feel very much like we have had the TSA and all the new insecurity measures shoved down our throats. Of course, since birds of a feather flock together; there may well be a mojority of Americans who DO approve of the new police-state measures. But I haven't met too many.

So the folks in England may also be coerced into compliance.

Coerced is a very appropriately used: the threat of everything from missing a flight, to arrest, the expense and humiliation of trial, etc- that's a complicated way of FORCING compliance, friends!

I like to think the average Brit still values freedom as well.

C-

 

[HankB]

As a person that has lived an honest life I have never been patted down in my 50+ previous years on this planet . . . What gives? What is it about a slightly past middle aged, somewhat overweight, balding white guy that got me the "Treatment"?

When a slightly past middle aged, somewhat overweight, balding white guy is being given the treatment it's probably so that onlookers like Hamid, Saddam, Mohammed, and Osama will be reassured to know that TSA is not practicing profiling. Thank your for your contribution to political correctness.

 

[Telperion]

Victorinox Multi-tools do not have locking blades.

as oneshooter says, the population of the UK chose how are laws are framed (after all, this is a democracy), so its up to us and is none of your concern, frankly.

So in return, what are you doing slumming in a US gun forum then, old chap? I'm waiting for the day that agricola can provide a moral or deontological justification for his country's laws that prohibit people from carrying sticks. But I won't wait too long...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

What's so horrible about a locking blade on a penknife? I have a Gerber folder that I carry with me all the time. It's not a switchblade, it's not even a "flickblade" (if there is such a term) -- if >I want the blade open, I take out the knife in one hand and use the other hand to open it. It locks open -- the better to prevent "Mr. Manual Dexterity" from amputating a digit. This now fits some sort of terrorist profile?

Heck, this summer I visited a National Monument. Forgot the knife was in my pocket until I had been in the line for 20 minutes and got to the sign ... the one that said "No Weapons." So I did what any red-blooded former Boy Scout would do -- I hailed a nearby <attractive blonde> park ranger and asked her if my pen knife was going to get me busted for trying to sneak a "weapon" into the site. She asked to se it, I showed it to her, and she then said "Well, since you've showed it to me you can hardly be accused of trying to sneak it by me, can you?"

End of discussion.

 

[Chuck Jennings]

would you like to tell us how Ozzy Osbournes actions have been "outlawed"

Since 1967, when the rules of what constitutes acceptable use of deadly force where changed by parliament, there has been incremental administratve changes made to the interperetation of laws concerning self defense. From my understanding, these changes (which were not decided on by the people) have left many Britons frustrated and dismayed by the very real possibility of having a case brought against then by the Crown Prosecution Service for exercising their human right of self defense. This fear comes from many criminal and civil proceeding that have be initiated against victims of crimes. The fact that Ozzy was praised while others have been hauled in shows how the system is not fair to victims of crimes.

My posting of Britions reactions to this abrogation of the common law principles of self defense is to illustrate my belief that the good people of Great Britan have had enough. Furthermore, the recent Telgraph poll that showed that 71% of britons are in favor of "unqualified right to use force, including deadly force if necessary" against burglars shows that the elite are out of touch with the will of the people. There is a movement to institute a "make my day" style legislation that is being advocated by many former chief constables.

I sincerely hope that the good people of great Britan can bring their government back to the cause of protecing their people's rights. London has always been one of my favorite cities, and I hope that Britons can arrive at a place where liberty is not disposed of so readily in the name of saftey.

 

[AZRickD]

What would William Pitt say?

Lots of AngriCola's nonsense removed -- The takehome message:

As for the whole issue with regards to stops and searches under the Terrorism Act, well thats one of the consequences of having had bombs going off for the past thirty-five years.

Indeed...

Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

Dang, A-C, you've got your countryman, Pitt the Younger, puking in his grave.

Shame on you.

that story does not ring true at all to me.

That does it for me.

Further to that, he was not detained for the possession of a penknife - he was detained for it having a lockable blade, and for possession of the collapsible baton.

This is supposed to sway any of us here at THR? Laws against pocket knives, batons, and offensive umbrellas and canes? Heck, we don't like Englands firearms laws, why should we support laws against kitchen implements?

as oneshooter says, the population of the UK chose how are laws are framed (after all, this is a democracy), so its up to us and is none of your concern, frankly.

Nobody here is asking to vote in your socialist enclave. However, we're very concerned. That's why we broke with your side of the pond after all, isn't it? The Founding Fathers warned us of the evils of "democracy." Your example just drives the point home. We thank you for reminding us. Your newspapers repeatedly argue (and berate us) that we in the States should adopt your silly laws. I hope we can learn from this episode to stem to slide toward your country's mistakes.

as for "stops under the Terrorism Act", I can think of at least three occasions where such stops have led to the discovery of IRA cells on their way to kill a great deal of people.

I can think of numerous times when suspension of the 4th and 5th Amendments led to criminals being released on technical grounds. William Pitt wants to have a word with you, A-C.

Rick

 

[Sam]

To expect that a British citizen would have the same protections and liberties as ourselves is ludicrous. In case some of you have forgotten, we have been to war with the British on two ocassions, precisely because of thier attitude and position on civil liberties.
The fact that we have sided with them during several wars is irrelevant. Pure coincidence that we had similar aims at the time. The United Kingdom is not
and has never been a "free" nation in the way that the US is. It never will be a free nation so long as it has no constitutional guarentees to freedom for it's citizens.
Along with thier restrictive firearms laws, they do not have a free press either. I probably haven't studued them as much as I should but I'm quite certain that there are many more liberties that we enjoy, which are not found there. I think that collectively we should not be surprised by any suggestion that thier citizens might be treated in a manner which we find repugnant.

Sam

 

[wasrjoe]

I thought it was interesting when I read an article about Ozzy's tackling of the thief that was in his home. I can't find the article right now (it was on Google news and had a title that was along the lines of "Was Ozzy right for tackling the thief?") but there was a very long list of people quoted. I believe only one or two said anything negative about Ozzy's actions.

Now, the most interesting thing was that several of these people said something to the effect of, "Nowadays in Britain we're scared to defend our selves for fear of being prosecuted or sued."

I really need to find that article.

 

[White Horseradish]

Some of this has been said already, but I don't want you to confuse my opinion with someone else's.

Those who lie about little things are usually lying about the greater picture as well. also, there is a difference between the copy of the tape provided to the solicitors (which will be just the record of the interview) and the CCTV tape of the custody area. if what he alleges happened, it will be on the CCTV.

You are assuming that was a deliberate lie and not a mistake. I have spent a few hours cuffed in a police station. If I told you I rememebered what the bench was made of, I'd be lying. I realize there is a difference between tapes, that was a sarcastic inference.

I used to work at Charing Cross Police Station and I know many of the officers that work there; that story does not ring true at all to me.

Your loyalty is commendable, but does reveal a certain bias. I find it hard to believe that 100% of the officers at the station have great personalities and never have a bad day and get angry.

Further to that, he was not detained for the possession of a penknife - he was detained for it having a lockable blade, and for possession of the collapsible baton.

Lockable or not, it's still a penknife. A baton is still a stick, albeit a folding one with a French name. (Hmmm. Could that be the true reason they are banned? ) I am not disputing the legality. I am stating my opinion that this particular prohibition is idiotic.

as oneshooter says, the population of the UK chose how are laws are framed (after all, this is a democracy), so its up to us and is none of your concern, frankly.

Do forgive me. I must have missed the regulation that forbids me to have on opinion about a place I don't live in. I assume you have no opinon on anything outside UK borders, then?

as for "stops under the Terrorism Act", I can think of at least three occasions where such stops have led to the discovery of IRA cells on their way to kill a great deal of people.

I take it they were going to perpetrate this slaughter with penknives and sticks?

 

[Hydromeda]

We don't have a free press?

News to me....

Also (although i may be wrong) the fact that we have signed up to the declaration of human rights guarantees our personal freedoms without the need for a constitution.

Just because our political system is different from yours, doesn't have to make us wrong.

 

[Faithless]

The 'declaration of human rights' holds less value than toilet paper.

Have a poke round on this

 

[White Horseradish]

We don't have a free press?

Nobody has a free press. Press costs a heck of a lot of money and belongs to the one who is willing to pay it.

I don't see how a declaration can guarantee anything, it's merely a statement. For example, the Declaration of Independence in US does not guarantee anything , it's not a law. The Constitution is a law and does guarantee various things.

 

[mussi]

Free press?

Free press is indeed a rare thing.

In quite a few European countries, it's illegal to publish anything gloryfying the Nazis, or just pointing out that some ethnic groups get a better deal just because they are what they are.

In other countries, naming a special ethnic group or editing some piece of online content lands you in jail.

The difference between these two places is that the former claims to be 'following human rights' and puts up claims to 'civilization'. Also look at Singapore as well. At least there they don't claim all that.

And where sits the UK? I don't know. At least not in a place I'd like to live, or even work. I've had quite lucrative work offers from the UK and I declined them all.

Most readers can easily guess why.

 

[Hydromeda]

I appreciate that the press, which influences the population hugely, is run by a relatively small number of people, and cannot therefore be truely considered "free". My notion of a free press however is not the idea of some sort of democratic press, made by the people for the people, but rather that is not swayed or influenced by the government of a given country, and this, I submit, we have.

As for the declaration, you're right. Signing it as of itself means nothing, but the laws that have been brought in to codify the declaration within our legal system do.

 

[Faithless]

I going to assume you're talking about England Hydromeda.

What free press? 6 or 7 individuals/corporations collectively own most of the 'British' media.

With Blunkett in charge, security is a better word than liberty.

 

[another okie]

It is important for us in the U.S. to remember that they do in fact have a Bill of Rights in England; they just ignore it, as we ignored the First Amendment in passing campaign finance reform, and as we ignored the Fourth Amendment in the Patriot Act.

One protection we have that the British do not is that our Bill of Rights is in a Constitution which cannot be changed by the legislature; theirs is a just a law and can be changed at the will of Parliament.

But all such declarations and laws and constitutions are just words on paper if we are not willing to fight for our freedoms with the four "boxes": the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, the cartridge box.

 

[Hydromeda]

I believe England was the topic of conversation.

Again, yes, the media is owned by a small number of individuals. These indiviuduals do however seem to have conflicting poilitical beleifs, looking at the different ways they cover the news, and i reiterate that my notion of free press is one that is free from governmental control. Anyone can start up their own paper, and say pretty much whatever they like, it's just that most people don't/can't/don't sell many papers

 

[Sam]

When speaking about not having a free press in the UK I was specifically referring to something called the "Official Secrets Act" that allows the government censorship rights of printed and broadcastm material, among other things.
Didn't have a thing to do with the cost or dominace by moguls.

They don't have any way to water the liberty tree either. Hell we had to loan 'em guns to keep the huns away.

Sam

 

[Hydromeda]

That was the type of thing i thought you meant.

There may be a piece of legislation to allow the british government to censor the media in the interest of national security, but if there is such a thing, the Official Secrets Act is not it. This act deals only with the restriction of governement workers from giving out confidential information, and does not mention what the government may be allowed to do about the information once it is leaked.

I may be wrong, the wording is here if you would like to peruse yourself:

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890006_en_1.htm

You may actually be thinking of the system of defense advisory notices, which is a way for the government to let the media know what subjects to avoid. This system is however voluntary, and noone can be legally prosecuted for going against the advice.

http://www.dnotice.org.uk/notices.htm

 

[agricola]

Chuck,

You should read less Joyce Lee Malcolm. The 1967 change (and its interpretation since) have had no effect on the way in which self defence has been interpreted by the Courts as this link shows. In this particular instance Osbourne was congratulated, and noone except you has called his actions unlawful.

White Horseradish,

My experiences lead me to doubt his story, but if he has a legitimate greivance then let him sue so that those officers who he alleges have committed criminal as well as disciplinary offences face some form of justice - all the evidence is going to be right there on the tape, and its going to be backed up by his solicitor who witnessed the whole thing.

Of course, if that doesnt happen then you have to ask questions - as I am already - about how truthful this man's story is. I have no doubt he was arrested for the reasons he gave, but the rest of it stinks to high heaven.

AZRickD,

William Pitt the Younger is dead, fortunately - had I been alive he would have probably had me beaten for insolence.

He had good reason to fear democracy though - after all, he only graduated from Cambridge despite the fact that he chose not to take his examinations (something the sons of noblemen were allowed to do), and he only obtained his Parliamentary seat by finding a wealthy landowner who controlled a pocket borough. You could also point to his refusal to step aside after Parliament passed at least one no-confidence motion in him (not for any moral grounds - the King refused to deal with his opponents (to the extent of calling them "his enemies" (which of course meant "off with their heads")), so Pitt was able to remain in office). Pitt then won the next election using bribery and widescale corruption (even for the standards of the times), and was able to glue himself into the consitutency of Cambridge University for the rest of his life as a result.

Is it worth also mentioning that he was one of the first Prime Ministers to suspend habeas corpus? Or the Seditious Meetings Act? Or perhaps the Combination Acts? Maybe the Treasonable Practices Act that led Thomas Paine to flee fearing his life for publishing the Rights of Man?

Lets leave out the fact that, despite being born with a silver spoon in his mouth, having never married and having produced no heirs, he managed to run up debts of £40,000 (which was paid out of the public purse).

Aside from that, I am sure you using Pitt the Younger as an example for this works, on some level, but I'll be damned if I can see it.

 

[Boats]

Free press in England? My brother, who lives in Shakespeare's birthplace, reports he has to pay the Beeb a service fee, called a license, and he avoids the Beeb like a plague. Of course the Beeb in England has no direct analogue here. Yes, PBS and NPR are supported by diminishing tax handouts, but no one here can imagine being forced to directly buy the government administered news/enertainment service like the Beeb demands.

Life in Airstrip One as he calls it. I can only conclude that his English wife is mysteriously talented in ways I don't care to think of.

 

[Sam]

Hydromeda,
It was not contained in the Official Sectets Act and I stand corrected.
I will research more thoroughly and repost when I find the proper law.
Under the current "DA" notice system which is purely advisory no one can be prosecuted. Under the old or "D" notice system publication could be and was supressed, although I am not familiar with any prosecutions under that act.

Just for grins you might look up the conditions of liscense fro the BBC. The Home Secretary has total discretion over content. Refer to the Brind case of 1990 as an example an example.
The Court of Appeal in R v Home Secretary, ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696. For a useful summary, see R Clayton and H Tomlinson, The Law of Human Rights (2000) paras 2.13 – 2.17.

Your judges pretty much threw out the European Convention on Human Rights when it comes to government interests.

Sam

 

[Sistema1927]

It is hard to imagine that these are the descendents of the men who defeated the French at Agincourt.