BS: UK: Police State

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: GUEST,999
Date: 25 Feb 10 - 02:05 AM

"I see the one time darling of the U.K. police force,shamed police commander Ali Dizaei has been assaulted while in prison."

Assaulted ???

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: GUEST,Falco
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 05:47 AM

This guy has been playing the race card for years. That's how he got to the high rank. Now let him pay the price!

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Folkiedave
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 04:56 AM

And someone photographing street scenes was held under the Terrorism Act and then released.

Seen this?

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: GUEST,Falco
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 04:03 AM

I see the one time darling of the U.K. police force,shamed police commander Ali Dizaei has been assaulted while in prison.

The senior Metropolitan Police officer is serving a four-year jail sentence for assaulting and falsely arresting a young businessman before trying to frame him.

Another inmate at HMP Edmunds Hill, Suffolk, poured a slop bucket over Dizaei's head.

He was convicted earlier this month and branded a "criminal in uniform" by chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission Nick Hardwick. Nice guy by all accounts.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Nov 09 - 03:55 PM

Right; the 'hysteria' bit seems to have disappeared down the sewer from whence it came (along with Teribus's horse-maiming slur), as you have still failed to produce one single example to back up your accusation.

"…..you have failed to respond to anything I've put before you…"
Nope, I've responded to everything you've said – you haven't actually made any points, you have expressed your faith in the reliability of the good-old British bobby, nothing more.

"You came into this thread making unverifiable one-sided accusations against the police…. "
One-sidedness does not enter the equation. Our police (both sides of the Irish Pond), have considerable powers that are not given to the rest of us; the right to arrest and detain, to stop and search, the power to enter and search our homes….. et al. If we, as ordinary citizens, complain of how they wield those powers, it is almost certain that those complaints will be investigated and dealt with by the police themselves. In the case of our legal system, a policeman's word will invaiably be believed in preference to that of any 'ordinary citizen'.
This thread is entirely about whether those powers should be extended.
   
"…. not a shred of verifiable evidence, just your own anecdotes"
I have described the incidents that I was personally involved exactly as they happened – it only remains for you to call me a liar (and, of course, provide the evidence for such an accusation).
As for the rest; the Brownhills deaths are a matter of record; I've cited two sources for this, and there are several more, if you would like to follow them up.
The killing of a Traveller lad in Ennis by a knife-carrying policeman's son, the subsequent conviction for manslaughter and the fact that no sentence has yet been passed, after - I think – at least twelve months – (it took at least as long as that to bring the case to trial), are a matter of public record and were widely reported in the local and national press; as are the events surrounding the execution of Traveller John Ward by a farmer (Nolan, I think, but I could be wrong).

"….. together with thinly veiled hints that all of the records had been destroyed by the police ……"
Sorry, must have missed that one – where did I say, or even suggest this? I have no idea whether these incidents were recorded by the police, let alone destroyed.

"Now to the real nub of all of this - you conveniently omitted a salient, highly relevant fact about a very serious crime, and its outcome, in order to make it fit your anti-authority agenda."
You appear to be clinging to my mistake (that's what it was) as a drunk clings to a lamp-post for support. I have acknowledged it was a mistake on my part and apologised for the same. As I have already said, I would have been extremely foolish to try and deliberately pass off such a piece of misinformation concerning such a well-known incident. Once again, it it appears you are calling me a liar – seems to be the way you handle unpalatable facts.
I have said that I did not realise that burglary carried the death penalty – you apparently think it does, or if it doesn't, it should.   

"…..that such an omission might cause readers to doubt the veracity of the rest of your attack on the police."
Or on the other hand – it might create a smokescreen in order to hide the real issues of this thread, the power held by our lawmakers and enforcers, how they use them and whether they should be extended.

"You then changed your story and tried to pretend you'd 'forgotten' these major details of the issue which I had corrected you over."
The only detail I got wrong was that I stated that Tony Martin was acquitted – do you have anything to back up your claim that I pretended to forget 'these major details', other than the fact that you appear to be accusing me of being a habitual liar?
"Your response was to accuse me of calling you a liar….."
Where did I call you a liar? So far, you are then one suggesting that anybody is telling lies (won't hold my breath waiting for an answer to this one either).

The rest of your posting is somewhat empty invective and really not worth bothering with.

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Oct 09 - 06:10 PM

Apologies for my HTML-skill deficiency - the underlining should have ended with "you are completely unable to 'prove'."
- 6th para from the end.

Unless my post is mysteriously deleted, maybe Joe or an elf will remove the offending underlining?

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Oct 09 - 06:04 PM

An interesting choice of words there, Jim - 'smear'. Harks back to another thread?

But I digress........

Jim, you appear to have a very short memory, and a serious problem with understanding both what's been said to you and also by you. I've been challenging you all the way through this exchange, and you have failed to respond to anything I've put before you, choosing instead to steadfastly continue your policy of denial, distortion and deflection.

You came into this thread making unverifiable one-sided accusations against the police - not a shred of verifiable evidence, just your own anecdotes which you expected everyone to swallow, together with thinly veiled hints that all of the records had been destroyed by the police - another unverifiable anecdote.

Now to the real nub of all of this - you conveniently omitted a salient, highly relevant fact about a very serious crime, and its outcome, in order to make it fit your anti-authority agenda.

I pointed that out and, quite reasonably, suggested that such an omission might cause readers to doubt the veracity of the rest of your attack on the police.

You then changed your story and tried to pretend you'd 'forgotten' these major details of the issue which I had corrected you over.

I explained that your comments right through this thread were unbalanced and asked you to give them some balance, and to try to see that there is another side.

Your response was to accuse me of calling you a liar, which I carefully explained was not my intention, and indeed I indicated that I have a fair degree of sympathy for your cause - the mis-treatment of Travellers - but that IMHO some balance in your postings, and a less selective memory, might make what you say carry more weight.

You have steadfastly refused to answer any of my points, instead choosing to try to turn everything back on me, and to demand that I 'disprove' the very accusations which you are completely unable to 'prove'.

That's the behaviour of a charlatan, Jim - an attempt at the kind of chicanery that the least-desirable parties in our political system are given to indulge in. Denial, distortion and deflection - where have we seen that recently? You should be ashamed of yourself, Jim.

The only person who has 'bottled out' here is you, Jim - bottled out of admitting you distorted the true facts of the Martin/Fearon/Barrass case, bottled out of any attempt at real discussion, bottled out of facing the truth about your own bias and bigotry against authority, bottled out of having the grace to try to understand and genuinely, constructively respond to what's being said to you, bottled out of giving real answers by trying to make yourself the victim and trying to make me 'disprove' anecdotal 'evidence' which you can't prove.

You were caught out right back at the start, and you hadn't the balls to admit what you were up to. And ever since, your only response to reason and attempts by me to have a reasonable, adult discussion has been to wriggle like a worm, and you're still wriggling.

It's schoolboy playground tactics Jim, and it's beneath contempt.

At least I can see the sunset, and I've got the balls to ride into it knowing that I'm a fair, honest and truthful man, Jim. I'll sleep with a clear conscience tonight, Jim. Will you?

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Oct 09 - 02:17 PM

Backwoodsman
Personally I get pissed off to the back teeth with people who subsitute smear and innuendo for real argument (as both you and Teribus have done on this thread) and then bottle out and ride off into the sunset when challenged.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Oct 09 - 07:33 AM

Read your stuff (here and on other threads) again, with honesty and an open mind, Jim.
I'm gone.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Oct 09 - 06:52 AM

"screaming and ranting,"
On a thread concerning how much power we should allow the state to hold over over our daily lives in terms of personal information I have listed a series of incidents I know to have taken place concerning Travellers - here in Ireland and in Britain, because I believe it to be relevant to the subject.
Can you please give me examples of my having screamed, ranted or become hysterical, (loudly or otherwise) - I won't hold my breath for your answer!
I am not in the habit of advocating on behalf of the Travellers - I believe that this should come from the Travelling community; I am concerned what is done in my name as a British citizen, now living in Ireland, no more than that. #
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Oct 09 - 04:42 AM

"Backwoodsman - Address the incidents I have cited - everything else is evasion - or are you claiming I made them up, or that somehow they are justified?
Jim Carroll"

I'm claiming nothing, Jim, other than that you gave us an example of a crime committed against members of a specific section of the community (whose cause you support, loudly and almost to the point of hysteria) by their terrified victim, whilst ignoring the crime they themselves (being demonstrably 'Career-Criminals) were in the process of committing (and, reportedly, repeating) against that terrified person.

Jim, you make a very great many claims which are totally unsupported, other than by your own words - along the lines of "When I was with them..." or "I saw it myself". Anecdotal evidence, Jim, unsupported and unverifiable. And unbalanced.

And the issue I mention above, put into the context of all of your other unsupported, unverifiable, anecdotal evidence, unfortunately gives an impression of someone prepared to use any distortion to "prove" his points and pursue his own political agenda, whilst loudly and aggressively denying that there's 'another side' (as there always is, of course). So no, I'm not saying you're a liar Jim, but you appear very much to be in your own little world of Denial Of True Fact - of admission that there is 'another side' to the problems that exist between Travellers, the Non-Travelling community, and the agents of The Authorities.

Jim, I'm aware, from the many years I spent as a Youth-Worker, working with (amongst others) teenage children of Travellers who came to live on the Travellers' Site in our town, that they themselves are often the victims of hate, and of hate-driven crime, and I've had to deal with those issues on more than one occasion. I'm also very aware indeed (and carry the mental bruises, if not still the physical injuries) that they have their own culture and their own Codes, and sometimes this culture and these Codes don't sit easily with the Non-Traveller vast majority. And, perhaps understandably, these differences of culture and Behaviour Codes are the cause of fear amongst those who don't understand them, and the people they represent.

But Jim, one thing's as sure as Hell - you won't convince anyone of the scale of injustices committed against Travellers, by screaming and ranting, and making one-sided, biased, unbalanced claims against the Non-Traveller community and the agents and representatives of Authority, whilst carefully ignoring 'the other side'.

Balance and Reason, Jim. Far more persuasive than one-sided screaming and ranting, however loudly thou dost protest.

That's it. I'm sure you won't agree and, as I've got a real life to pursue, it's my last one.
Best wishes.
BWM

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Oct 09 - 04:10 AM

Dave,
Don't forget that it was/is regular practice by the police on duty during demonstrations (contrary to their own regulations) to remove all identification from their uniforms so they could do what they did/do anonymously.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Folkiedave
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 08:28 PM

I'm glad Folkiedave brought up Orgreave because that is what went wrong with the prosecution of those arrested there was no coverage of the events - but one thing is undeniable stones and bricks were thrown which is not part of a peaceful protest or within the law and the first man to be injured that day at 08:00hrs was a policeman, PC Akers.

Remember the iconic Orgreave picture? It was of Lesley Boulton with a policeman on horseback about to try and smash her head in with a truncheon. And she wasn't a stone thrower. The other one was of a policeman beating seven bells of shit out of a miner who bare chested and laid out on the bonnet of his car.

The 93 miners arrested charged with riot were acquitted - because the police lied and it was obvious in court that they had done so. Orperhaps you think the judges in Sheffield Crown Court were sympathetic to the miners.

And your explanation of the death of Ian Tomlinson?

Remember - if you are innocent then you have nothing to worry about? Well he was innocent and he's dead.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 01:06 PM

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"

Benjamin Franklin

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 12:42 PM

Backwoodsman - Address the incidents I have cited - everything else is evasion - or are you claiming I made them up, or that somehow they are justified?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 12:25 PM

The Police State has been with us for years. I've been trying to tell folks that, telling them that their children are put on a register from the day they're born to the age of 18 (and who knows if beyond)...and there their 'records' (???) can be accessed by police, teachers, medical staff, social workers etc....but not the parents or the children. Any child considered 'at risk' has a flag beside their name. My son does....because...he is home educated. (double ???)

We have been living in Orwell's 1984 for many years now. However, it's taken until now for many people to start waking up to that fact.

This is NOT the country my Dad went to war to protect, to fight to his last breath for. It has become a Country of Control, where we are watched on every street corner, monitored all the time, even getting a library card, here in Torbay, now requires two forms of identification, as does signing on with a new doctor.

So very often now, you ring up to find something out, and you are asked your name, birth date, national insurance number, address..etc..etc....Some places won't even deal with you unless you give them your National Insurance Number first...(triple ????)

Still, never mind....it's Friday night again...and it's time for the Proles to Party, while the police watch and the politicians rub their alcohol un-free hands together, spreading more germs of discontent, as their 'people' drink themselves into yet another stupor, dumbed down and sozzled out for yet one more evening...just as they used to be in Russia...still are.

The Let's Party Party has done it's job well.....

Bring back Dixon of Dock Green, eh?


Too late, my luvvies.....too late....

And Winston thought oh so silently to himself...

"Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death. I have committed even before setting pen to paper the essential crime that contains all others unto itself." (taken from '1984' by George Orwell)


And if The Police are out there....I am soooooooo ready to start La Revolucion that I could even talk you tough guys into joining me..

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 10:54 AM

Not an apologist Jim, but a realist - one who tries to see the whole story, however many sides there are, not just the one that gives me (read 'you' there) the best orgasm. I'm sure that much of what you have to say would stand closer scrutiny, but you write in a very extreme and one-sided way, and that does nothing for your case - especially when you loudly proclaim a wrong inflicted on those whose cause you support, yet make no mention of the wrongs they inflicted on their victim. You may not mean it that way, but it appears to be a deliberately-contrived deception and an indication of a very heavy bias. And for every story you can recount of injustice and thuggery against Travellers, there will be another that others can recount of those same offences by Travellers, and they will claim equal veracity. You can't successfully champion a cause if you don't face the realities, Jim.

You also make the mistake of labelling and abusing those who don't share your opinions 110% - you won't win support from doubters and waverers by calling them names, Jim. All that does is absolutely 110% confirm in their doubting, wavering minds that you're a prat (even if you're not).

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 10:37 AM

Backwoodsman,
I neither called you a racist not a fascist thug - just an apologist for same, which you appear to be.
As for my one-sided diatribe, I merely pointed out incidents which I have either witnessed or am convinced by the evidence at hand, took place.
Nobody so far has attempted to address those incidents in any satisfactory way, other than to deny that some of them happened (based on what?) and ignore the rest.
It is not my intention to insult you or anybody, just to point out the doubtful wisdom of allowing our personal information to be put at the disposal of people who act in the manner I have described.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 09:30 AM

Jim, I'm neither a racist or a fascist thug, nor am I an apologist for those kinds of people. I simply pointed out a very important fact which you chose to omit from your extremely one-sided diatribe, offered some background information which may go some way towards explaining why Tony Martin was a very frightened man indeed, so frightened in fact, and so badly failed by the police when he made repeated requests for assistance on earlier occasions (so much for your assertion of a "Police State"!), that he took the law into his own hands. And I suggested that it might be a good idea to introduce some balance into your arguments to give them more credibility. That's all.

I certainly didn't insult you in the way that you've tried to insult me. But guess what - you failed, I couldn't care less.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 09:14 AM

It was not my intention to mislead anybody. I know, as I am sure you do, that the case is well enough known for it to be a waste of time my trying to do so.
I'm pretty sure Tony Martin was in full in posession of all the facts you mentioned before he pulled the trigger - I don't think!!!
I'm equally sure that, had a Traveller taken a shotgun to one of those decent law-abiding settled people taking part in one of the many raids, firebomb and arson attacks which have taken place during the time we have been involved with Travellers, the individual in question would be viewing the world through the bars of a prison for a long time to come.
However, far be it from me to take away the straw my mistake has given you to grasp in order to excuse the murderous behaviour of rednecks, backwoodsmen and fascist thugs.
As said earlier, I have become as used to the racist bigotry of such thugs and their apologists as, I am sure, the German people were to their pre-war counterparts,
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 08:49 AM

Jim, don't insult my intelligence. You chose not to mention that the two gobshites in question were burglars because it speaks contrary to the distorted, rose-tinted image of innocence you wanted to get across.

Just so there's no doubt about the type of people you so stoutly defend as paragons of virtue, here's some info about the elder of the pair, the leader of the venture I would guess:-

"Brendon Fearon of Newark, Nottinghamshire, is a career criminal. He was convicted for conspiring to burgle the home of farmer Tony Martin in a notorious raid on 20 August 1999. His accomplice, 16-year-old Fred Barras, was fatally shot by Martin near his remote farmhouse in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk. Fearon, aged 29 at the time, was hospitalised with gunshot wounds to his legs.

Fearon, a small time career criminal who had been convicted of a string of about thirty offences, starting with handling stolen goods in September 1986, for which he was fined £25, through theft, burglary, drugs, fraud and wounding, for which he received a 1 year sentence, his third and longest custodial sentence, in May 1997.

During 2003, Fearon applied for, and received, an estimated £5,000 of legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injury he sustained.[2] However, the case was thrown into doubt when photographs were published in The Sun suggesting that Fearon's injuries were not as serious as had been claimed.[3] Fearon later dropped the case when Martin agreed to drop a counter-claim.[4]

Fearon was again jailed for 18 months on 6 February 2003 for dealing in heroin.[7] Controversy was again provoked, in July 2003 when Fearon left Ranby prison after serving less than a third of his 18-month sentence - just days before Martin's release. The Home Secretary, David Blunkett requested an explanation from the head of the prison service.[8]

On 2 September 2003 Fearon was arrested for taking a Toyota Land Cruiser on 24 August without the owner's consent.[9] On 9 November 2003, he was found guilty of driving the vehicle without insurance and recalled to prison to serve the remainder of the preceding sentence.[10]

In August 2005 Fearon was arrested with Dean Thompson, accused of drawing out £11,000 from a bank machine using stolen cash cards. Fearon was bailed to appear before magistrates in October.[11]
In February 2006, Fearon was banned from two public houses in Newark. The Crown Court Judge called Fearon "a menace" and issued him with an 18 month community order for his part in causing a large disorder occurring at the said locations[12]"

From Wikipedia. Nice chap, eh Jim?

It's a mistake to defend the indefensible, Jim. Some honesty would make your arguments more valid.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 08:01 AM

Which question - why didn't I mention that the two lads were burglars - I responded by saying I hadn't realised that burglary was a capital crime - wasn't that enough?
As I said - all this has nothing to do with the incidents I have cited.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 07:51 AM

Answer the question, Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 07:16 AM

(Aptly named) Backwoodsman.
My apologied for getting the Martin verdict wrong - am no longer in the UK.
However, I recall the sentence Martin got bore no relation to the killing of a human being - or does burglary carry the death penalty in Britain since I left?
None of this makes any difference to ANY of the cases I have cited - you want more - how long have you got?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 06:50 AM

"You may remember the Tony Martin incident in the British press fairly recently, when a farmer was acquitted for killing a young Traveller"

well Jim, if that's a sample of the veracity of all the other stuff you post, it proves Teribus to be absolutely correct.

Tony Martin was convicted and spent a term in prison for his offences.

And why didn't you mention that both scrotes - the one who died and the one who survived - were attacked by Martin when he caught them burgling his house at dead of night?

Engage brain Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 05:00 AM

Travellers, up to fairly recently, have always walked away from trouble, realising only too well that there is no justice for them.
We know the people concerned, as did many on the folk scene in London. They, like most of the other Travellers we met over the thirty odd years, simply wanted a quiet life.
One incident we did get to witness up close was the one I mentioned at Mitcham Common, in South London.
A group of Travellers moved (illegally) onto the common because there was nowhere else for them to go. I had been told by somebody I was working that his brother-in-law and a few other 'respectable householders' in the area planned to firebomb the site in order to drive them off. I went, along with one of the Travellers, to the local police station and gave the information I had, and was made to feel like a criminal myself by the police, for associating with such people. Whether it was our making it known that we intended to report the incident to the police or the fact that the Travellers themselves mounted a guard on the site, the raid didn't happen - certainly no help was forthcoming from our 'guardians of the law', who got round to interviewing us over a week later. That one didn't make our 'free press' either, despite the local paper having been given the relevant information by the Travellers.
You may remember the Tony Martin incident in the British press fairly recently, when a farmer was acquitted for killing a young Traveller.
We had a fairly similar, and certainly far more open-and-shut case here in Ireland.
A farmer came home to find two Traveller men in his yard. He went inside, brought out a gun and shot one of them in the back, (they were both leaving the premises at the time). He proceeded to beat the wounded traveller with a heavy stick, then went into the house, reloaded his gun and administered the coup-de-grace to the Travller, John Ward, who was lying on the ground, killing him. No dispute of the facts of the well-reported case during the trial of the farmer, who had quite resigned himself to prison. Jury's verdict - NOT GUILTY.
Two years ago an argument broke out in our local market town between two groups of youngsters, Travellers and settled. One of the settled lads produced a knife and stabbed one of the Travellers, killing him instantly.
When arrested, the killer said "He was only a knacker (the Traveller equivilant of 'nigger').
During the trial, the charge, for some strange reason, was 'manslaughter', and the perpetrator, A POLICEMAN'S SON, was found guilty.
The judge said he would pass seentence at a later date - to my knowledge, sentence still hasn't been passed and the killer A POLICEMAN'S SON, still remains free.
Now tell me again about the 'good sense' that Teribus makes Villan!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 04:14 AM

[i]So they arrive up in Glasgow and just dump him you say - now can you imagine anybody doing that - what you are describing is an abduction at best kidnapping at worst - and you claim that serving police officers did this because they were trying to extort money from a traveller? What they could get from this close friend of yours was worth more than their careers, salaries and pensions? Come on get real, and they leave behind a trail of evidence a mile wide plus the victim who can identify them - highly bloody unlikely.
[/i]

You seem to doubt any police force in a civilised country would do such a thing. I remember one similar, well documented case of Dutch police in Rotterdam, where I was living at the time, who picked up a drunk/junkie and dropped him well outside the city. Please note here Dutch police is generally less involved controversy compared to the UK force.

The only reason this ever became well documented was that they chose to do this on a very cold winter's night on which the man froze to death.

So yes, I certainly believe policemen are well capable of serving rough justice (as they see it) and more or less routinely do so.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Rasener
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 03:32 AM

Sorry Jim
You have only produced hearsay information.
Are there any newspaper reports to refer to, concerning this incident?


Anyway Teribus makes good sense.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 Oct 09 - 02:43 AM

Ahh:

"We didn't have to believe anything - while we didn't actually witness the child being taken away, we had visited the site two days before the incident and received a phone call the day after the family moved to tell us where they had moved to, and why. We also spoke to the child and to the Scots Travellers who brought him back home - conspiracy theory or what?"

Ask Richard bridge about "hearsay evidence".

My guess is that your "example" of how rotten our Police Service is, is a complete and utter fabrication - or maybe you have never been a parent, I know what my reaction would be if one of my children had gone missing.

Back to the thread topic:

Is it true that we are still entitled to gather and peacefully demonstrate any matter in protest? - Yes we are.

Is it true that we have access to all levels of Government and are free to complain about things we object to? - Yes we are

Do we have a free Press? - Yes we do

Do we enjoy freedom of speech? - Yes we do

Are we free to travel where we wish? - Yes we are

In a Police State none of the above would be allowed - Therefore we do not live in a Police State, in fact we are nowhere close to living in a Police State.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 09:34 PM

We didn't have to believe anything - while we didn't actually witness the child being taken away, we had visited the site two days before the incident and received a phone call the day after the family moved to tell us where they had moved to, and why. We also spoke to the child and to the Scots Travellers who brought him back home - conspiracy theory or what?
You want horror stories - try the Brownhills eviction, well documented in Jeremy Sandford's book 'Gypsies' and his 'Songs From The Roadside' cassette and booklet (again, we spoke to and recorded some of the Travellers concerned). There, the local authorities carried out an illegal eviction on a site, towing off caravans from a site without ascertaining that there were no occupants. The result - three children (sisters) were burnt to death when a solid fuel heater overturned.
I won't even bother to go into the fire-bombings and arson attacks carried out against unofficial Traveller sites (the end result of some of these we did witness, and on one occasion - on Mitcham Common, were able to help prevent).
I suggest you people step outside your 'Dixon of Dock Green' world and take a look at what is happening in your name.
Your 'trail of evidence' assumes that Travellers are either able or willing to take advantage of the rights that the law supposedly gives them - they are not - or certainly, they were not at the time, though they are becoming more aware of them - slowly.
We do have the slight advantage of having been around at the time of the East London incident - personally I don't give a shit one way or the other whether you accept what we heard and saw or not - as far as Travellers are concerned, we are well used to people 'passing by on the other side'.
You will believe what it suits your preconceptions to believe, whereas we only have our personal experiences to go on.
Fuel and accomodation expenses, paperwork - I'm afraid you've been watching The Bill for far too long - real life just ain't like that.
It is enough to say that it is highly unlikely that there will be any Travellers on the road in ten - maybe fifteen years (being optomistic) time thanks to the treatment meted out to them by the settled community and because of the third-world conditions they experience in this 'green and pleasant' land of ours. The official mortality rate and life expectancy statistics speak for themselves.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 07:33 PM

Get Richard Bridge to tell what is meant by "Hearsay evidence".

Fits in with:

"You know what I heard from a friend of mine who heard it from a friend of his down the pub last night? Well .............. (Now then Jim add in what ever sort of horror story you want to dream up in order to push the right buttons)"

It would be just as believable.

Close friends you say?? What did you do when the child went missing?? Who made the missing persons report to the police?? Who organised the local search??

So the police lifted this fourteen year old and questioned him about a robbery in Glasgow. Where did they question him?? Where is the record of him being brought in?? Records must exist. They put him in a car and took him up to Glasgow you said - now there has to be records of that. For a child of that age there would have to be three officers not to mention the requisition for the car, the fuel, the over-night accommodation and per diem allowances, or expense claims for the officers involved. Everything would have to signed for, cross-checked and accounted for.

So they arrive up in Glasgow and just dump him you say - now can you imagine anybody doing that - what you are describing is an abduction at best kidnapping at worst - and you claim that serving police officers did this because they were trying to extort money from a traveller? What they could get from this close friend of yours was worth more than their careers, salaries and pensions? Come on get real, and they leave behind a trail of evidence a mile wide plus the victim who can identify them - highly bloody unlikely.

Its damn funny the things that you seem to question and the things that you accept as being the gospel truth and take at face value. And I most certainly do not believe that I am the person needing a reality check here.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 05:03 PM

Do I have evidence of the traveller boy incident - only the fact that we were regular visitors to the family at the time and, as I said, they were close friends.
The taking into custody and then releasing of Travellers some distance from their stopping place was also a regular occurence, though this was the only incident I am aware of concerning a child.
The police demanding bribes from Travellers in order to leave them in peace was common practice throughout the time we worked with them in London. Harassment of Travellers, especially dawn raids on sites, even official ones, were also known facts.
The East London Travellers formed their own organisation, The London Roadside Traveller Group, and met regularly in a pub room in Club Row. Several solicitors (Norman Bell is the only name I remember), gave their services gratis, and Ken Livingstone and the then GLC held regular meetings with Traveller representitives.
The harassment of different and unconnected groups of Travellers was something we were told of regularly and there are a number of descriptions in interviews we recorded as part of our collecting work.
Of course, nothing quite goes so far as Birmingham Councillor Harry Watton's statement to Charles Parker during the making of 'the Radio Ballad, 'The Travelling People' when he suggested helping those who would be helped and "exterminating the impossibles", but it is pretty common here in Ireland at the present time to hear what is happening to Travellers being described as 'ethnic cleansing'.
Don't take my word for all this - there are plenty of people around who have worked with Travellers and are as aware as we are of what goes on.
Ask Sheila Stewart about it soemtime.
I really am not surprised that Teribus deoesn't wish to believe that such things go on - it would prick the lilac- cloured bubble he seems to be living in - but the rest of you..... come onnnnn; were none of you ever on an anti-nuclear, or a miners demonstration and witnessed how the police behave at such gatherings - or even the Notting Hill Carnival for that matter?
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 02:31 PM

"A democratic society permits organised and democratic opposition to it."

As ours does - It also requires that those engaged in such demonstrations and protests stay within the law.

"Should the police be in attendance at demonstrations? Absolutely yes. Should they collect photographs, names, addresses, numberplates? No absolutely not."

So when things start to go wrong, how do the police establish what happened, where and when.

I'm glad Folkiedave brought up Orgreave because that is what went wrong with the prosecution of those arrested there was no coverage of the events - but one thing is undeniable stones and bricks were thrown which is not part of a peaceful protest or within the law and the first man to be injured that day at 08:00hrs was a policeman, PC Akers.

As to the story of the Traveller and his 14 year old son being driven to Glasgow from East London?? I really would have to see some independent proof and substantiation that it actually happened, sounds like a bit of a tall-tale to me - Oh but of course there won't be (the Police would have destroyed it), so we are left to take the story on trust. Some will believe it, others will be sceptical. Unfortunately the Travellers will not be available for comment which is kind of convenient. A story that cannot be substantiated, but guaranteed to push the right buttons of the feeble minded. Do I buy it - No I don't.

Fact still remains - you can demonstrate for or against anything you like in this country without let or hindrance - will the police be present - yes they will they are required by law to be there - will they record details - yes they will they have to in this day and age to cover their arses in case something goes wrong.

I believe that the police do a very tough job and by and large they do it well and cope magnificently and for that they should be given credit for it. Some people have a problem with authority which they simply cannot control, luckily I am not one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 01:18 PM

Should the police be in attendance at demonstrations? Absolutely yes. Should they collect photographs, names, addresses, numberplates? No absolutely not.

Let's not forget how easy it is for data to get corrupted. About 12 years after I had married, US Social Security Administration and the IRS, linked databases suddenly dropped my married name from my record and reverted back to my maiden name.   Every year after that happened, I had to resend my birth and marriage certificates to get my married name reinstated. Why? Something to do with how the program kicked over from IRS back to the SSA, would strip out, my married name. They could never figure out why. They weren't fussed, I just had to get it changed every year before April 15 when taxes were due. What a pain in the ass.

So what is to prevent a table of peaceful protesters and a table of terrorsists, getting all jumbled up in the "Extremist database?" One wrong entry and John Q Public who refused to cross a picket line one day, whose name and picture is now in the database finds he is marked for life because an errant keystroke checked the "dangerous" field on his record. How the hell do you fix that?

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Rasener
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 12:21 PM

Do you have the evidence Jim, or is this hear say?

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 11:42 AM

Anybody who has had any dealing with Travellers will be well aware of the true nature of our boys in blue.
One of the singers we were recording settled for some time in a yard in East London, paying the owner a regular rent. We knew him for around thirty years and counted him and his family among our closest friends. I have no doubt whatever that those who were lucky enough to see him perform at the numerous folk clubs he attended would happily vouch for his being a quiet, well behaved and extemely friendly man. He was also regularly asked to tell some of his stories at local schools and library events.
Shortly after he moved onto the yard he received a visit from a couple of local bobbies who asked for donations (they didn't say what for) and, for a time, he obliged (for a quiet life, he said).
After a while, the amount he was asked to donate increased to such an extent that he finally decided that enough was enough and refused to pay any more.
There followed a period of harrasment, being picked up and taken to the local nick and questioned, always being released without charge. Dawn police raids and searches became a regular event, again without being charged.
The final straw came when his 14 year old son went missing.
It turned out that the boy had been picked up by a squad car, questioned about a burglary in Glasgow and driven there (none of this was in the presence of an adult, which, I understand, the law requires.
The boy was released without even having been questioned and left, without money, to make his own way back to London. Luckily he had the nouse to seek the help of local Travellers who helped him get back home.
The family moved off the site the following day.
And these are the people who we should allow to gather and hold our personal details - yeah, sure we should.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Folkiedave
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 05:30 AM

Slight thread drift. I had an argument with authorities at Manchester Airport Station and I know I was telling the truth and that they were lying.

Remarkably when I asked for the CCTV films which would have completely exonerated me and shown them to be liars, their lawyer first of all said they didn't control he CCTV tapes and they were contolled by MAnchester AIrport. Fortunately I had a letter from Manchester Airport stating exactly the opposite. Then they said they were only used at times of heightened security and when this was shown to be untrue said they were simply not switched on at the time.

Remember the police lie. Only when they can demonstrably shown to be telling a lie do they admit the facts. And if they get chance they will stick to their version of events even when all the evidence shows them to be wrong. Too many people died (or spent long times in prison) when the police already had evidence that they didn't do it.

They tried all sorts of lies to exonerate themselves over the death of Ian Tomlinson including saying that some demonstrators may have been dressed as police officers.

I live near Hillsborough. Remember the tapes there which showed what had happened in direct contradiction to the police version? They disappeared.

Jean Charles Menendez - an innocent man - was shot in front of lots of people by a police officer. So even when they have the intelligence they still get it wrong.

Remember the TV pictures of the miners strike at Orgreave which showed the miners stoning the police and then police charging the picket lines? And in court was found to be a reversal of the truth. And all those arrested were acquitted?

The difference between us Teribus comes down to the fact that you seem to invariably believe the police and I don't.

And that's why I believe they should have as little power as is necessary to maintain a democratic society.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 05:04 AM

Just in case we lose sight of what is being done to us and on our behalf - here are some of the salient points from the article:
"Detailed information about the political activities of campaigners is being stored on a number of overlapping IT systems, even if they have not committed a crime."
"Senior officers say domestic extremism, a term coined by police that has no legal basis, can include activists suspected of minor public order offences such as peaceful direct action and civil disobedience."
".....routinely deploy surveillance teams at protests, rallies and public meetings. The NPOIU contains detailed files on individual protesters who are searchable by name."
"One man, who has no criminal record, was stopped more than 25 times in less than three years after a "protest" marker was placed against his car after he attended a small protest against duck and pheasant shooting. "
"Police surveillance....... record footage and take photographs of campaigners as they enter and leave openly advertised public meetings."
"Denis O'Connor, the chief inspector of constabulary, will next month release the findings of his national review of policing of protests. He has already signalled he anticipates wide scale change. His inspectors, who were asked to review tactics in the wake of the Metropolitan police's controversial handling of the G20 protests, are considering a complete overhaul of the three Acpo units, which they have been told lack statutory accountability."
Acpo's national infrastructure for dealing with domestic extremism was set up with the backing of the Home Office in an attempt to combat animal rights activists who were committing serious crimes. Senior officers concede the criminal activity associated with these groups has receded, but the units dealing with domestic extremism have expanded their remit to incorporate campaign groups across the political spectrum, including anti-war and environmental groups that have only ever engaged in peaceful direct action."
Is all this really the equivilent to the information carried on my passport? No, of course it isn't, but it does have the makings of an excellent police state.

"you will find Jim Carroll's posts leaping to his friends defence."
Quote please
To make the picture quite clear, - I knew Bryn briefly 40 years ago through a singing workshop we were both involved in and have had no contact with him since apart from a few public exchanges on Mudcat. I find the maiming of animals (and human beings) deeply offensive and doubt very much if somebody who has genuinely indulged in such practices would admit publicly to having done so - look at the efforts Mrs Thatcher's friend made to avoid coming to trial for such behaviour.
As I said - smear.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 04:38 AM

So keeping police records of those who have committed no offence and in relation to whom there are no reasonable grounds for suspecting that they have committed an offence is not a step towards a police state? A democratic society permits organised and democratic opposition to it. Your preferred society, teribus, seemingly does not.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 09 - 02:38 AM

"The decision to remove our basic rights to freedom of expression/free speech, freedom of assembly, the right to privacy (which you apparently hold quite dear by making an issue of the misspelling of your pseudonym).... and all the other rights and freedoms that come with democracy, is ultimately a political one."

Well let's see shall we:

1. "Am I prepared to put these rights and freedoms in the hands of Pinochet's friend, or Gordon Brown, or John Major, or Tony Blair (he of the illegal invasion of Iraq)..... or any other bent or incompetent politician......? No, I am not - are you?"

From what you say above they are already in the hands of "bent and incompetent politicians" - you have no say about it whatsoever apart from how you vote at each election.

2. If as you say decisions realting to your rights and freedoms are ultimately political all your references to the police and security forces are all red herrings, all irrelevant.

You still have not answered my question.

Richard Bridge asked me:

"I hope, teribus, that you have direct and reliable evidence that Bryn Pugh did dip hatpins in shit and stick them in police horses, for unless you have it is pretty close to undoubtedly actionably defamatory of a lawyer, and may have consequences."

Well Richard would the man's own admission be good enough?? Trawl through his posts and you will find it. You will also find posts of mine where I took him to task for it and then in the same thread you will find Jim Carroll's posts leaping to his friends defence.

Back to the thread - do I feel that the UK is a Police State? No and those who say it is should go and experience life in a Police State they would then be able to tell the difference.

Any takers for handing in their Passports because they are a form of identification that infringes your persoanl rights? - NAW, I thought not.

Odd that with al this chatter about Police States and personal rights and freedoms that no-one has mentioned the Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution - you know the one that ZANULabour promised to give us a referendum on - if you want to see your rights and freedoms stripped away just back your present Government and keep quiet about it, meekly accept rule from a bunch of non-elected commissars from Brussels - with Tony Blair as their President - Absolutely Priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Peace
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 09:24 PM

From the newspaper where I live.

"Cameras delayed by privacy assessment

By Marilyn Gray

Plans to bring security cameras to the Valley Shopping District have been held up by the Alberta Privacy Commission, which told the Town it should complete a privacy impact assessment before putting the cameras in place.

The cameras were expected to be in place by August of this year, but the processes that are expected to be completed by the Alberta Information and Privacy Commission were not factored into the original estimate of how long it would take to complete the project.

While the assessment is not a mandatory action before putting up the cameras, the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner's officer recommends it as due diligence to ensure that proper regulations will be followed when the surveillance is in place.

"The questions they're asking are really, is this the best thing for the Town?" said Mike Schwirtz, infrastructure services director for the Town of Hinton. "If we don't do this privacy impact assessment process we might get into trouble."

"There are so many intracacies to this, it's good to do [the assessment]," said Schwirtz.

Questions being asked by the commission in the assessment will include who gets to view the tapes from the cameras and how long they will be held before being destroyed.

"It's a very good idea that they do so," said Wayne Wood, director of communications for Commissioner Frank Work, adding that it will ensure that municipal officials understand the regulations surrounding the cameras and help determine whether this is the right course of action for the Town.

"However, the commissioner is not a fan of video surveillance," said Wood.

"His view is that all it does is disperse crime."

Wood pointed to experiments with video surveillance in the City of Edmonton on Jasper Ave. as an example, saying that when cameras were put up bar fights and drug deals only moved to the alleys instead of the sidewalk. He also pointed out that when crime was caught on camera, the resolution was so grainy at night that arrests were rarely made as a result of the surveillance."

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:11 PM

My referenced to Thatcher as an extremist prime minister with open fascist connections who regarded everybody who disagreed with her as 'The Enemy Within, and didn't believe there was such thing as 'society', is perfectly relevant to the present question.
The decision to remove our basic rights to freedom of expression/free speech, freedom of assembly, the right to privacy (which you apparently hold quite dear by making an issue of the misspelling of your pseudonym).... and all the other rights and freedoms that come with democracy, is ultimately a political one.
Am I prepared to put these rights and freedoms in the hands of Pinochet's friend, or Gordon Brown, or John Major, or Tony Blair (he of the illegal invasion of Iraq)..... or any other bent or incompetent politician......? No, I am not - are you?
Bent politicians aside..... am I prepared to put my basic rights in the hands of a police force which is answerable only to these politicians and who reserves the right to police its own behaviour and to act as judge, jury and executioner on any complaints brought against any of its members....... No, I am not, are you?
Am I prepared to put these rights into the hands of faceless and nameless members of various security services who have time and again proved themselves incompetent, corrupt and undemocratic.... No, I am not, are you?
Am I prepared to throw my hands in the air and abandon my and everybody else's democratic rights because of the threat of terrorism by a bunch of religious fanatics...... No I am not, are you?
AS far as I'm concerned democracy, whatever it's weaknesses, is a precious commodity and is constantly under threat, from corrupt and incompetent politicians who would love to be left alone to get on with their corruption and incompetence, from shadowy organisations who appear to regard themselves as being above the laws they claim to uphold, and from right-wingers like yourself who appear to look with contempt on anybody who doesn't have their heads jammed up the backsides of the establishment and its agents and representitives.
If, as you say, our law-makers are fallible, who gets to finally decide which of our democratic rights are valid..... the Government, MI5, MI6, The CIA, the police, the military, you, Nick the Nazi, Big Brother?
Jim Carroll
By the way - perhaps you would like to point out where I ever advocated or defended the maiming of police horses - you seem to rely heavily on smear tactics as a form of argument, as I remember.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 08:03 PM

I hope, teribus, that you have direct and reliable evidence that Bryn Pugh did dip hatpins in shit and stick them in police horses, for unless you have it is pretty close to undoubtedly actionably defamatory of a lawyer, and may have consequences. I can be 100% certain that my late wife would not have hurt a horse (she was a bit dotty about them) but that did not stop the police trying to get their horses to trample her both in Grosvenor Square and in Red Lion Square.

Time and time again it has been proved that the authorities cannot be trusted with data - and the police tactics against the miners during the Thatcher war with Scargill were often disgusting. The evidence that they arrested innocent people and fabricated evidence is overwhelming.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 06:53 PM

"Thanks folks - I note the question I asked went unanswered"
As did mine to you"

I went back to your post and found this:

"Since when have legally held political demonstrations and protests been subversive and subject to surveillence, or are you suggesting that our law-makers have it wrong and the police should decide what is or is not permissable?"

Which I suppose is the question you refer to, I must admit that in reading your original post I gave up on it when you went off thread ranting on about Maggie and the miners. I know that you would have far preferred it if a bunch of NUM Officials ran the country or dictated what could and what could not be done to the elected Government of the day but what the heck your version of democracy might differ a tad from mine.

Answers to your questions:

"Since when have legally held political demonstrations and protests been subversive and subject to surveillence"

Well it is quite within the bounds of possibility that legally held political demonstrations and protests can be subversive. It is also definitely within the bounds of commonsense and safety that all legally held political demonstrations, protests, football matches, mass rallies, pop concerts, in fact any event where large crowds gather will be subject to police surveillence - you see it happens to be their job, at the same events tucked away somewhere you will find representatives of all the other emergency services - it happens to fall under their job description as well to be present.

"are you suggesting that our law-makers have it wrong and the police should decide what is or is not permissable?"

Our law-makers are as fallible as the rest of humanity, but on any given day the law of the land is exactly that and that is what must be upheld. The only thing that the police decide upon is whether or not any law has been broken, or whether or not there is any risk to life or property - now you can only do that if you are present and watching (surveillence). If at any stage they believe that point has been reached then they are compelled to act in order to enforce the law, save life, or prevent loss of life or injury and protect property.

At these legally held political demonstrations and protests there is also a responsibility on those organising them to ensure that those attending stay within the law - true??

Now when are you going to answer my question, without recourse to Maggie and the miners, my political beliefs of which you actually know nothing - or do we want to revisit the practice that you find so estimable of dipping hat-pins in shit then sticking them into Police Horses as practiced on the picket-lines by your good friend and singing companion B Pugh.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 05:19 PM

I both support the police (who always have a tough job) AND the general public's right to live in peace and freedom without being spied upon and intimidated by Orwellian government agencies.

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 04:38 PM

"Thanks folks - I note the question I asked went unanswered"
As did mine to you - on the other hand, I didn;t expect a reply from someone who appears to agree with the not-quite-late-lamented Maggie that everyone who doesn't agree with her is "The Enemy Within".
"who likewise does not "even have the courtesy to spell my name correctly"
Would that be Fred Teribus (I seem to having a slanging match before over your deliberately using a mispelling of my (real - not pseud) name as a feebly attempted insult - or is my memory playing tricks?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Rasener
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 02:01 PM

Didn't get the link right.
John Conolly
Grumpy Old Men of Old England

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: Rasener
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 01:59 PM

>>What you should also bear in mind is that a 'grumpy' police man or woman may have worked a 16 hour double shift and during that time might have had to face a loony with a shotgun, tell a mother her teenage son has been killed in a car crash and been smacked in the face by a drunk – plus the usual everyday pressures that all of us have to put up with. No excuse for rudeness or worse, I agree, but hey, they're only human (most of them). <<

Well said theleveller

I support the police. Leave em alone. They have to do a shit job without very often the support of the general public.

>> a 'grumpy' police man or woman<<

Not to mention Grumpy Old Folkies. They are even worse. :-)

Come in Mr Conolly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0joRysAQ84

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 01:51 PM

I take it that - A C Grayling's latest book, Liberty in the Age of Terror: A Defence of Civil Society and Enlightenment Values - must be a pretty short book if you expect me to have gone out bought it and read it all within a 24 hour period.

DVLA - application requires cross reference to UK Passport Office - can't get a better ID Card than a Passport, Leveller - That particular ID Card lets you travel all over the world - Does anybody who holds a Passport believe that it infringes their civil liberties - if they do then they should, purely out of personal conviction return them - any takers, or do you still want your holidays abroad??

My apologies for mis-spelling your name an automatic spell-checker converted it from "Leveller" to "Leveler", didn't realise you were so sensitive about it - I must adopt the same tack with the likes of Jim Carroll, who likewise does not "even have the courtesy to spell my name correctly".

Subject: RE: BS: UK: Police State
From: theleveller
Date: 28 Oct 09 - 01:02 PM

"Ever heard of the DVLA Leveler??"

No comparison between that and ID cards, which would be the greatest infrigement of personal freedom ever introduced into the UK - and that is why every organisation concerned with personal liberty is opposed to it. Like I said, read the book I suggested - I have neither the time nor the inclination to enlighten you, especially as you don't even have the courtesy to spell my name correctly.

Crow Sister, I don't disagree with you – I just find it amusing that an anti-establishment person like me can have a police officer for a son.

I do think, however, that the attitude of the police tends to reflect the views of society as a whole and, of course, you get good and bad coppers. What you should also bear in mind is that a 'grumpy' police man or woman may have worked a 16 hour double shift and during that time might have had to face a loony with a shotgun, tell a mother her teenage son has been killed in a car crash and been smacked in the face by a drunk – plus the usual everyday pressures that all of us have to put up with. No excuse for rudeness or worse, I agree, but hey, they're only human (most of them).