PDA

View Full Version : British police deliberately attemping to cause trouble



monsterstack
May 10th, 2009, 04:29 AM
If you don't know the story so far, here's a little recap:

The British police force have been harassing lawful protesters under the guise of stopping terrorism for some time now. They've made a few incredible balls-ups along the way, too. In 2005 they shot an innocent man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes) [wikipedia.org] in the head eight times, wrongly believing him to be a terrorist. More recently, at the G20 protests in London, videos emerged that showed the police beating up a fellow (http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&hs=MJf&ei=tEgGSqXaM4fSjAen1enWAQ&resnum=1&q=ian+tomlinson&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=uUgGStX0GsjOjAeTlKjiBA&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#) [video.google.co.uk] [contains violence], who subsequently suffered a heart attack and died.

Now largely adding proof to what most people already know, it turns out the police were intent on causing as much trouble as possible at the demonstrations, as this article shows (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs) [guardian.co.uk]. In effect, they were attempting to cause a riot, which would be a great reason for tougher legislation and harsher penalties for people practising dissent.

Mr. Picklesworth
May 10th, 2009, 04:46 AM
George Orwell is turning in his grave.

Vostrocity
May 10th, 2009, 05:07 AM
Conspiracy! :popcorn:

MikeTheC
May 10th, 2009, 05:11 AM
Vis a vis George Orwell, let me say one thing about that which does not reflect my views in any way: George did not, from everything I understand, like England very much. I don't know how and I don't know why, I just know he didn't like them. He even went so far as to dub England "Airstrip One" in 1984, which is, of course, the story you're getting at by invoking his name. I'll bet he's doing a bit more than just turning over in his grave.

Alright, now that being said, we're treading on thin ice here, board rules-wise, so I'll keep this as clean and non-violatory as possible.

I think there is a lot more going on here than a whole bunch of "the general public" either realizes or is willing to accept, and I mean that of the populations of both our respective countries. While I have my suspicions, I will not discuss them here. Just suffice it to say it's unfortunate and, if I'm right, it will come back to haunt us in the future.

Let me say one last thing: If you haven't watched it, make time and see Babylon 5, the first four seasons. It's not a blueprint, and it may not be a precise road map, but it may just open your eyes a bit.

Best of luck to you folks "across the pond". I wish you well.

monsterstack
May 10th, 2009, 05:52 AM
Well yes, the British government has been using Nineteen Eighty-four as an instruction manual for some time now. Let's have a look at some of the Acts that have been passed over the last few years that harm civil liberties:


From Wikipedia's article on British Civil Liberties:

Terrorism Act 2000, extended the limit to 7 days detention without charge for terrorist suspects. It also allows terrorist organisations to be banned. Sixty groups have to date been outlawed. The Act also introduced a broad definition of "terrorism" under s.1. The stop and search powers in the Act were used to search protesters at an arms trade fair in Canary Wharf, including a Ph.D. student and a journalist who took legal action as a result.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, allows the government full surveillance powers of all kinds of communication.
Civil Contingencies Act 2004, allows the government, for an "emergency", to deploy armed forces anywhere in the country during peace time. It also allows property to be sequestrated, for an "emergency" with or without compensation anywhere.
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, created an offence of inciting religious hatred, an advanced notification scheme for protests upto 1 kilometre from Parliament.
Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, in response to the destruction of the NYC World Trade Center on 9/11, the government passed legislation allowing indefinite detention without trial for non-British nationals suspected of committing terrorist offences, but without enough evidence for an actual trial.
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, the government passed this, allows the Home Secretary to impose control orders on any British citizen. Anybody suspected of terrorist related activities by the Home Secretary, but without any kind of trial, can be electronically tagged, monitored, be restricted from making phone calls, using the internet, be banned from certain kinds of work, can be restricted from going certain places, have one's passport revoked and be under a duty to report to the police.
Terrorism Act 2006, following the bombings in London on the 7th of July, this legislation allows for people suspected of terrorist offences to be detained without charge for up to 28 days. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 had extended the time to 14 days. The government had initially proposed a limit of 90 days, saying this was on the recommendation of the police, and citing support from opinion polls. Opposition among MPs saw the first defeat for the Blair government; the Conservative amendment of 28 days detention without charge being accepted. The act also created a new offence of "glorifying terrorism".
Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 sought to extend the number of days detention without charge to 42 days and to allow the Home Secretary to require an inquest to be established without a jury in secret if they deems it to be in the public interest, the interest of an overseas treaty partner or in the interest of national security. David Davis MP, a Conservative politician and Shadow Home Secretary at the time, resigned his parliamentary seat in June 2008 in protest over the proposed extension to detention with charge. His resignation forced a by-election, which he contested and won on a civil liberties platform. Neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats stood a candidate.


People need to remember the most salient message from Nineteen Eighty-four:


If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

xeticus
May 10th, 2009, 06:03 AM
One of the things that I would find scary is how in London they cameras every where on the streets following your every move. I think Britain a quiet revolution. Their labor party seems to a little too authoritarian and big government for a real labor party.

monsterstack
May 10th, 2009, 06:09 AM
One of the things that I would find scary is how in London they cameras every where on the streets following your every move. I think Britain a quiet revolution. Their labor party seems to a little too authoritarian and big government for a real labor party.

Just make sure you don't look at the cameras. :rolleyes:

http://www.werbeblogger.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/cameras.jpg

joshdudeha
May 10th, 2009, 08:04 AM
More recently, at the G20 protests in London, videos emerged that showed the police beating up a fellow (http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&hs=MJf&ei=tEgGSqXaM4fSjAen1enWAQ&resnum=1&q=ian+tomlinson&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=uUgGStX0GsjOjAeTlKjiBA&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#) [video.google.co.uk] [contains violence], who subsequently suffered a heart attack and died.



If you remember, the second Coroner's Report showed that he actually died of Internal Bleeding. I think it was sick, because he was just on his way home from work and wasn't even protesting and they hit him down hard.
What is also revolting, is how the police took their ID badges off, so they couldn't identified, they were acting like thugs.

joshdudeha
May 10th, 2009, 08:10 AM
One of the things that I would find scary is how in London they cameras every where on the streets following your every move. I think Britain a quiet revolution. Their labor party seems to a little too authoritarian and big government for a real labor party.

That is also my opinion.
They seem like they are totally against the people of Britain now, they feel like they don't trust anyone and they are also just out to claim money from people (e.g. with these pointless fines for doing things such as not closing your bin lid).

They are not the Labour they used to be.

England needs a revolt against this government.

monsterstack
May 10th, 2009, 08:13 AM
A revolt? Might not be a bad idea.

http://mikedaisey.com/images/2007/watchful_eyes.jpg

Elfy
May 10th, 2009, 08:18 AM
I've closed this thread - it is politics unrelated to free and open source issues.