• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Britain: Police State?

Indeed, believing that you're possibly about to be wrongly caught I guess creates very similar anxiety and reactions to believing that you're possibly about to be legitimately caught. :(
 
It's self evident that most traditional 'lie detectors' can easily be gamed. Obviously the ones that detect the brain using areas for dissembling are more efficient in suggesting the whole truth isn't being told.
 
Manchester police used 'dangerous' CS gas without permission, court told
Force used incapacitating grenades for five years without home secretary’s approval and despite warnings, inquiry hears

Sunday 22 January 2017 11.43 GMTLast modified on Sunday 22 January 2017 12.06 GMT

Greater Manchester Police used incapacitating CS gas grenades for five years without permission from the home secretary, a public inquiry has heard.

The force’s firearms unit used the weapon even though government scientists refused to sanction them and a national policing body described them as “dangerous”.

The revelation emerged at a public inquiry into the fatal police shooting of Anthony Grainger during a swoop on a stolen Audi in a car park in the Cheshire town of Culcheth.

The inquiry at Liverpool crown court heard that CS dispersal canisters (CSDC) were thrown into the car during the armed operation. They are designed to incapacitate suspects by spreading an irritant that temporarily restricts breathing and sight.
The inquiry heard that GMP’s firearms unit was told by the Home Office’s police scientific development branch in January 2005 that the CS grenades could not be sanctioned because they were potentially dangerous and had not been properly tested.

Yet despite the warning, the force purchased seven CSDC canisters on 9 July 2007, a further 24 on 23 August that year, then “more and more again” in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, the inquiry heard.

The force temporarily paused their use in October 2007 when other emergency service partners raised concerns about “excessive irritant” in the CS canisters following an incident when they were used.

In 2009, a member of the National Police Improvement Agency advised GMP that its use of the gas grenades was “dangerous”, the inquiry heard.

Advertisement
Jason Beer QC, counsel to the inquiry, told the chairman, Judge Thomas Teague QC, that GMP’s use of the CS grenades should be investigated as part of the 14-week inquiry.

He said: “This may raise issues for GMP which extend beyond the use of CSDC on 3 March, including, first, whether GMP knew that its use of the CSDC between 2007 and 2012 was without the approval of the home secretary.

“Second, why GMP introduced the use of the CSDC without the approval of the home secretary, without taking any of the steps required by the statutory code of practice to secure such approval and in breach of the statutory code of practice.

“Third, what steps GMP took after a member of the National Police Improvement Agency advised GMP in 2009 that its use of the CSDC was dangerous.” ...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-permission-court-told?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
 
Hopefully this doesn't extend to killing "awkward" people ala Hard Sun.

MI5 agents are allowed to carry out criminal activity in the UK, the government has acknowledged for the first time.

The prime minister was on Thursday forced to publish the text of a direction to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, the spying watchdog, on governing “security service participation in criminality”.

It instructs the IPCO to oversee the participation of MI5 agents in criminal activity, which was previously conducted by the now-defunct office of the Intelligence Services Commissioner, under a secret order referred to as the “third direction”.

However, guidance about when British spies can commit crimes, and how far they can go, remains confidential.

The commissioner, Lord Justice Sir Adrian Fulford, said: “I welcome the government’s decision to make public my oversight of this sensitive area of work.”

The order was published after a legal battle by the human rights groups Reprieve and Privacy International.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...mit-in-uk-government-reveals?CMP=share_btn_tw
 
Happy to say that there is no sign of a police state in these parts. This summer someone stole the rainbow flag from outside the police station. To my knowledge no doors have been kicked in nor any arrests made.
 
It is self defeating.

Far better to monitor these sites and create a record, profile of the person(s) accessing them.

When enough incriminating evidence of potential terrorist activity has been gathered, a quick dawn raid and the suspect can be escorted to some quiet location when he/she will be invited to explain the need to watch 'ISIS Daily' etc.

By then every text, phone call etc that they have made will be on record. And the same for all the contacts.

INT21.
 
Police involvement in the blacklisting.

A secret police document has revealed how the Metropolitan Police's Special Branch helped the illegal blacklisting of trade unionists - preventing them from getting jobs because of their political views.

In one case, detectives suggested one individual was a terrorist, despite the claim being wrong. The illegal practice - exposed ten years ago - involved major construction firms accessing secret files on 3,000 workers and their union activities. But until now, little has been known about the police's role, other than a Scotland Yard admission it had been involved.

Part of the secret report underpinning that admission has now been disclosed, after initially being classified as so secret it was for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's eyes only.

The report - codenamed Operation Reuben - found "numerous areas of concern" with "inappropriate contact of Special Branch officers with private organisations", including with one of the two blacklisting groups, the Economic League and the Consulting Association. ...

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-4745733...twitter&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbcnews
 
ramonmercado said:
Police involvement in the blacklisting. A secret police document has revealed how the Metropolitan Police's Special Branch helped the illegal blacklisting of trade unionists - preventing them from getting jobs because of their political views. Part of the secret report underpinning that admission has now been disclosed, after initially being classified as so secret it was for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's eyes only.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a class (war) action lawsuit to me.
 
balding13 said:
It's self evident that most traditional 'lie detectors' can easily be gamed. Obviously the ones that detect the brain using areas for dissembling are more efficient in suggesting the whole truth isn't being told.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that it assumes all people's brains are wired the same way. They aren't.
 
Britain is a long way from being a police state. In fact it need to toughen up and start instilling fear amongst the criminal fraternity.

INT21.
 
INT21 said:
Britain is a long way from being a police state. In fact it need to toughen up and start instilling fear amongst the criminal fraternity.

INT21.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I believe it is doing the 1984 stuff instead of proper policing. And that sadly the current attitude among the police forces is far more interested in policing 'social change' than actually preventing violent crimes against people or property
 
When criminals have no fear of consequence for their acts, they have no incentive to not commit the crime.
Crime pays; it is easy money.

If, right from the beginning, the people who seem to be quite happy to stick a knife into someone for the most trivial reasons knew that they would be executed if the victim died, or would spend many years in total isolation id the attack caused injury, they may think twice before acting.

We, as a nation, are far too lenient.

INT21.
 
INT21 said:
When criminals have no fear of consequence for their acts, they have no incentive to not commit the crime.
Crime pays; it is easy money.

If, right from the beginning, the people who seem to be quite happy to stick a knife into someone for the most trivial reasons knew that they would be executed if the victim died, or would spend many years in total isolation id the attack caused injury, they may think twice before acting.

We, as a nation, are far too lenient.

INT21.
Click to expand...
The laws are there, they are not being enforced.
 
Agreed. One has to ask why.

Could it be that the average criminal, so quick to abuse other people's rights and property, Is the first to squeal for his/her lawyer when they are caught ?
And the judiciary seem to be very much on the side of not offending the human rights of these scumbags; so they mostly get to walk free.

This subject does bring out the 'fascist bastard' in me. Admittedly it is never far from the surface.

INT21.
 
INT21 said:
Agreed. One has to ask why.

Could it be that the average criminal, so quick to abuse other people's rights and property, Is the first to squeal for his/her lawyer when they are caught ?
And the judiciary seem to be very much on the side of not offending the human rights of these scumbags; so they mostly get to walk free.

This subject does bring out the 'fascist bastard' in me. Admittedly it is never far from the surface.

INT21.
Click to expand...

Cost.

If there were even a modest increase in the number of suspects and confirmed criminals to be processed through the courts, the courts would cease to function and prisoners would be on remand or out on bail for literally years.

And if there were even a modest increase in the number of those found guilty and given custodial sentences, the prison system would be unable to accommodate the increased population--even if we went back to the dangerously overcrowded institutions of yesteryear.
 
INT21 said:
Agreed. One has to ask why.

Could it be that the average criminal, so quick to abuse other people's rights and property, Is the first to squeal for his/her lawyer when they are caught ?
And the judiciary seem to be very much on the side of not offending the human rights of these scumbags; so they mostly get to walk free.

This subject does bring out the 'fascist bastard' in me. Admittedly it is never far from the surface.

INT21.
Click to expand...

You're no fascist!

It's understandable that you should be annoyed at this. Knife crime is out of control. Dealing with it though will mean rebuilding police numbers. Not just that, intervention to prevent young people getting involved with gangs will also be required. Remember some join gangs because of bullying, threats and actual violence. They see no other means of protecting themselves.

In particular there is a need for a crackdown on the drug gangs which use young people, even children, to deliver drugs.

Of course decriminalisation of drugs would get rid of the reasons why the drug gangs exist in the first place but that's an argument for another day I guess.

Everyone has rights though and you won't build a better or safer society by denying people the right to a trial and legal representation.
 
Yithian said:
Cost.

If there were even a modest increase in the number of suspects and confirmed criminals to be processed through the courts, the courts would cease to function and prisoners would be on remand or out on bail for literally years.

And if there were even a modest increase in the number of those found guilty and given custodial sentences, the prison system would be unable to accommodate the increased population--even if we went back to the dangerously overcrowded institutions of yesteryear.
Click to expand...

There is also the factor that innocent people are charged with crimes and subsequently found not guilty.
 
Ramonmercardo,

I would disagree with much of that.

The way to fix the drug problem is not to give in to by by decriminalising drugs, it is to make it so unattractive that no one will dare to be found in possession of anything illegal.

But our system is gutless.

Everyone can live in a fair society. But you have to weed out the people who wish to take advantage of this fairness.

And this will upset those who make money from illegal actions.

But so be it.

INT21.
 
Additional,

And how many of these people who walk free having been found 'not guilty' are actually playing the law and really are completely guilty. But it is in some one's interest to let them go ?

A fair trial ? I completely agree. But if you are guilty you should be made to wish you had never commited the crime. And to be sure, in your own mind, you will never do it again.
 
INT21 said:
Ramonmercardo,

I would disagree with much of that.

The way to fix the drug problem is not to give in to by by decriminalising drugs, it is to make it so unattractive that no one will dare to be found in possession of anything illegal.

But our system is gutless.

Everyone can live in a fair society. But you have to weed out the people who wish to take advantage of this fairness.

And this will upset those who make money from illegal actions.

But so be it.

INT21.
Click to expand...

So you imprison everyone who uses drugs?

You're going to have to build a lot of prisons. A lot of extra tax to be paid.

Legalise and control drugs instead.

As I said you're no fascist but you do come across as a cranky old git at times!
 
ramonmercado said:
So you imprison everyone who uses drugs?

You're going to have to build a lot of prisons. A lot of extra tax to be paid.

Legalise and control drugs instead.

As I said you're no fascist but you do come across as a cranky old git at times!
Click to expand...

C'mon, Ramon.

Life's sweet in the Philippines of late.
 
INT21 said:
Additional,

And how many of these people who walk free having been found 'not guilty' are actually playing the law and really are completely guilty. But it is in some one's interest to let them go ?

A fair trial ? I completely agree. But if you are guilty you should be made to wish you had never commited the crime. And to be sure, in your own mind, you will never do it again.
Click to expand...

But who decides that someone is really actually guilty after being found not guilty? The media? You?

But how? Should all crimes result in a penalty of decades in prison? What sort of society would that result in?
 
Yithian said:
C'mon, Ramon.

Life's sweet in the Philippines of late.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Police free to murder anyone they say is a criminal.

Bring back capital punishment, don't worry about miscarriages of justice, just bury them.
 
ramonmercado said:
But who decides that someone is really actually guilty after being found not guilty? The media? You?
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top