Britain: Police State?
- Thread starter JurekB
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
State 'spying on Heathrow critics' as dossiers compiled of legitimate objectors to third runway are handed to police
By Ian Drury
Last updated at 9:54 AM on 25th May 2009
Civil servants are compiling dossiers on opponents of Heathrow Airport expansion and handing them over to police, it emerged yesterday.
Communications staff at the Department for Transport are gathering data on legitimate objectors to the £9billion third runway and offering the information to Scotland Yard.
Last night, Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker warned that the activities of the DfT's supposedly non-partisan civil servants were another step towards a 'Stasi-like police state'.
DfT officials monitored anyone speaking out against the planned third runway during the run-up to January's narrow Commons approval of the scheme.
Potentially the names of tens of thousands of innocent people from websites, press releases, news articles and public consultations were trawled over by bureaucrats, who then briefed detectives.
Critics suggest that even those who write letters to the DfT expressing concerns about the third runway will be checked out and the police notified.
The existence of the 'communications directorate' charged with monitoring opposition to a third runway was revealed in a written Parliamentary answer from Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon.
Mr Hoon said his officials sought to 'understand the views' of those 'with an interest in transport policy'.
But he admitted that information was being passed to police in the run-up to protests to ensure public safety.
He said: 'It is entirely appropriate that the department discussed safety arrangements with the relevant police forces.'
Mr Baker said: 'This is entirely inappropriate and suggests we have a secret state carrying out dubious anti-democratic activities within the DfT.
'They appear to be collecting information on people expressing genuine concerns about the third runway and passing it on to the police.
'They are spying for the police. It is like a Stasi-style police state.
'If you write a letter exercising your democratic right to make your views known on Heathrow you risk ending up on a database of potential troublemakers. It is scandalous.
'The fact that the monitoring was being undertaken by a communications and public relations team, rather than by the police or security service officials, strongly suggests the Government's real concerns about protests are political and nothing to do with national security or public order.'
Mr Baker said the communications directorate - better known as the press office - was being used to undermine protesters rather than to engage in a genuine debate with campaigners and local residents.
Plans to expand Britain's biggest airport have met fierce opposition from environmentalists, residents and many MPs, who claim it will bring misery and ill-health to millions through noise and pollution.
Michael Parker, of the NO2ID civil liberties group, said: 'For the DfT to pass to the police details of anyone with views contrary to the State as "potential troublemakers" is not only unlikely to encourage greater civic participation - it is outrageous, practically slanderous.'
Leila Deen, of anti-Heathrow expansion campaign group Plane Stupid, said: 'We've know for a long time that Geoff Hoon and the DfT are in league with [airport operator] BAA but the fact that they've been spending public money spying on us is seriously sinister.'
A DfT spokesman said: 'In light of the high-profile opposition to the proposed expansion, the police were notified of where and when Heathrow public exhibitions would be held and the Department made sure it kept abreast of information published on protest groups' websites and coverage in the media to see if any direct action was planned at these events.
'The information gathered was readily available in the public domain, and simply used to alert staff and the police to any disruption that was anticipated at these public events.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... olice.html
By Ian Drury
Last updated at 9:54 AM on 25th May 2009
Civil servants are compiling dossiers on opponents of Heathrow Airport expansion and handing them over to police, it emerged yesterday.
Communications staff at the Department for Transport are gathering data on legitimate objectors to the £9billion third runway and offering the information to Scotland Yard.
Last night, Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker warned that the activities of the DfT's supposedly non-partisan civil servants were another step towards a 'Stasi-like police state'.
DfT officials monitored anyone speaking out against the planned third runway during the run-up to January's narrow Commons approval of the scheme.
Potentially the names of tens of thousands of innocent people from websites, press releases, news articles and public consultations were trawled over by bureaucrats, who then briefed detectives.
Critics suggest that even those who write letters to the DfT expressing concerns about the third runway will be checked out and the police notified.
The existence of the 'communications directorate' charged with monitoring opposition to a third runway was revealed in a written Parliamentary answer from Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon.
Mr Hoon said his officials sought to 'understand the views' of those 'with an interest in transport policy'.
But he admitted that information was being passed to police in the run-up to protests to ensure public safety.
He said: 'It is entirely appropriate that the department discussed safety arrangements with the relevant police forces.'
Mr Baker said: 'This is entirely inappropriate and suggests we have a secret state carrying out dubious anti-democratic activities within the DfT.
'They appear to be collecting information on people expressing genuine concerns about the third runway and passing it on to the police.
'They are spying for the police. It is like a Stasi-style police state.
'If you write a letter exercising your democratic right to make your views known on Heathrow you risk ending up on a database of potential troublemakers. It is scandalous.
'The fact that the monitoring was being undertaken by a communications and public relations team, rather than by the police or security service officials, strongly suggests the Government's real concerns about protests are political and nothing to do with national security or public order.'
Mr Baker said the communications directorate - better known as the press office - was being used to undermine protesters rather than to engage in a genuine debate with campaigners and local residents.
Plans to expand Britain's biggest airport have met fierce opposition from environmentalists, residents and many MPs, who claim it will bring misery and ill-health to millions through noise and pollution.
Michael Parker, of the NO2ID civil liberties group, said: 'For the DfT to pass to the police details of anyone with views contrary to the State as "potential troublemakers" is not only unlikely to encourage greater civic participation - it is outrageous, practically slanderous.'
Leila Deen, of anti-Heathrow expansion campaign group Plane Stupid, said: 'We've know for a long time that Geoff Hoon and the DfT are in league with [airport operator] BAA but the fact that they've been spending public money spying on us is seriously sinister.'
A DfT spokesman said: 'In light of the high-profile opposition to the proposed expansion, the police were notified of where and when Heathrow public exhibitions would be held and the Department made sure it kept abreast of information published on protest groups' websites and coverage in the media to see if any direct action was planned at these events.
'The information gathered was readily available in the public domain, and simply used to alert staff and the police to any disruption that was anticipated at these public events.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... olice.html
Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,608
Ginando said:
There again...maybe the kids won't fall for it. Here's my nomination for 'Young Street Champions'...
There seems to be accusations of this being blown out of proportion but there's a comment from someone who claims to be among the pupils.
The irony is that the kids in this school are supposed to be achievers and doing well.
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/4 ... r_cameras/
Stormkhan
Disturbingly familiar
- Joined
- May 28, 2003
- Messages
- 8,676
Firstly, it'd have been cool for them all to wear "V" masks.
Secondly, that statement is incredibly cogitant and highly literate for a school's pupil. I'd say that the school should take credit if it turns out pupils who are so expressive, intelligent, organised and so damn witty.
It's like a non-violent version of "If"!
Secondly, that statement is incredibly cogitant and highly literate for a school's pupil. I'd say that the school should take credit if it turns out pupils who are so expressive, intelligent, organised and so damn witty.
It's like a non-violent version of "If"!
Mythopoeika
I am a meat popsicle
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2001
- Messages
- 51,768
- Location
- Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
I'm not arguing for the use of cameras in schools per se, but as someone who knows an ex-teacher who was falsely accused of hitting a pupil, the cameras may have a useful purpose - protecting the teachers from unfounded accusations.
My friend very nearly lost his job after he tried to remove an unruly pupil from class. The pupil complained to his parents, claiming that he had been punched. Unfortunately the head seemed to believe the pupil's version of events, and assumed guilt on the part of my friend. My friend and the head had a history of personality clashes with each other, so it appears that the head was just looking for an excuse to get him sacked.
My friend was able to produce witnesses and argue his case cogently, and he narrowly avoided losing his job.
If the class had been captured on video, the truth of the situation would have become clear immediately, and the pupil would have been sent packing.
My friend very nearly lost his job after he tried to remove an unruly pupil from class. The pupil complained to his parents, claiming that he had been punched. Unfortunately the head seemed to believe the pupil's version of events, and assumed guilt on the part of my friend. My friend and the head had a history of personality clashes with each other, so it appears that the head was just looking for an excuse to get him sacked.
My friend was able to produce witnesses and argue his case cogently, and he narrowly avoided losing his job.
If the class had been captured on video, the truth of the situation would have become clear immediately, and the pupil would have been sent packing.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2005
- Messages
- 175
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
UK 'must log' phone and web use
All internet and phone traffic should be recorded to help the fight against terrorism, according to one of the UK's former spy chiefs.
Civil rights campaigners have criticised ministers' plans to log details of such contact as "Orwellian".
But Sir David Pepper, who ran the GCHQ listening centre for five years, told the BBC lives would be at risk if the state could not track communication.
Agencies faced "enormous pressure" to keep up with technology, he said.
"It's a constant arms race, if you like. As more technology, different technology becomes available, the balance will shift constantly."
The work of GCHQ, which provides intelligence on foreign and domestic threats, is so secretive that until the 1980s the government refused to discuss its existence.
In his first interview since departing as its director in 2008, Sir David told BBC2 programme Who's Watching You that the agency had "very sophisticated targets".
"There are plenty of people who will do all they can to make themselves difficult to find.
"It puts enormous pressure on you. Everybody in the agency is acutely aware that if they don't do their job properly one of the consequences may be another terrorist outrage.
"The thing you worry about most is the attack that you haven't seen coming."
Last year, then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced plans for a database to record details of the times and dates of messages and phone calls but said the content of conversations would not be kept.
She said such data was used as "important evidence in 95% of serious crime cases" and in almost all security service operations.
Details of the times, dates, duration and locations of mobile phone calls, numbers called, website visited and addresses e-mailed are already stored by telecoms companies for 12 months under a voluntary agreement.
However, the Liberal Democrats said the government's plans were "incompatible with a free country and a free people".
In February, the Lords constitution committee said electronic surveillance and collection of personal data had become "pervasive" in British society.
Its members said the situation threatened to undermine democracy.
However, Sir David said he was speaking out to help people understand that agencies were there to protect them.
Who's Watching You? will be broadcast Monday 8 June at 9pm on BBC Two and will also be available on BBC iPlayer .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8087530.stm
All internet and phone traffic should be recorded to help the fight against terrorism, according to one of the UK's former spy chiefs.
Civil rights campaigners have criticised ministers' plans to log details of such contact as "Orwellian".
But Sir David Pepper, who ran the GCHQ listening centre for five years, told the BBC lives would be at risk if the state could not track communication.
Agencies faced "enormous pressure" to keep up with technology, he said.
"It's a constant arms race, if you like. As more technology, different technology becomes available, the balance will shift constantly."
The work of GCHQ, which provides intelligence on foreign and domestic threats, is so secretive that until the 1980s the government refused to discuss its existence.
In his first interview since departing as its director in 2008, Sir David told BBC2 programme Who's Watching You that the agency had "very sophisticated targets".
"There are plenty of people who will do all they can to make themselves difficult to find.
"It puts enormous pressure on you. Everybody in the agency is acutely aware that if they don't do their job properly one of the consequences may be another terrorist outrage.
"The thing you worry about most is the attack that you haven't seen coming."
Last year, then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced plans for a database to record details of the times and dates of messages and phone calls but said the content of conversations would not be kept.
She said such data was used as "important evidence in 95% of serious crime cases" and in almost all security service operations.
Details of the times, dates, duration and locations of mobile phone calls, numbers called, website visited and addresses e-mailed are already stored by telecoms companies for 12 months under a voluntary agreement.
However, the Liberal Democrats said the government's plans were "incompatible with a free country and a free people".
In February, the Lords constitution committee said electronic surveillance and collection of personal data had become "pervasive" in British society.
Its members said the situation threatened to undermine democracy.
However, Sir David said he was speaking out to help people understand that agencies were there to protect them.
Who's Watching You? will be broadcast Monday 8 June at 9pm on BBC Two and will also be available on BBC iPlayer .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8087530.stm
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,812
Yesterday we went to the Strawberry fair in Cambridge. The first thing we noticed were the signs at our station that drinking alcohol on the trains is prohibited. My husband wondered if it was just for today or forever as it didn't say. Next, some people obviously managed to cheat somehow and were drinking on the train, everyone was really happy and relaxed, there was no nasty atmos.
Then when we got off the train in Cambs, we were herded out of a side exit, everyone, tourists, people coming from work etc, we had to queue and watched as more than 20 police officers herded suspicious looking people to a tent were they were searched. A drug dog was implied and guess what, some people had cannabis on them [what a surprise]. Others had their alcohol taken or got lectured about it [!]. All the while we had to join the long wait. Nowhere did it say [for tourists for example] that there is a festival and that they are sorry for any inconvenience [cause they weren't]. I was fuming as we had nothing on us and just wanted to get to the bloody festival.
When we got to the front, a moany officer "moved us on" with a gesture that I didn't find quite appropriate for someone who hasn't done anything but disembarked a train. We felt like cattle...guilty cattle.
When we were through we wondered what the fuck that was all about.
It wasn't to keep us safe from terrorists because only hippies were stopped. So it could have been to stop people from using/selling drugs...nope because most people there came from Cambridge or used cars and there were plenty of "dodgy's" about selling/ smoking openly, so that didn't work out.
The only thing we could come up with was that it was a great opportunities to score a few "arrests" or "stops" for free.
However I thought that the whole thing was utterly unnecessary, rude and an infringement of my [all train users] freedom. No apologies, just herding and picking. It made me sick and angry.
:furious:
Then when we got off the train in Cambs, we were herded out of a side exit, everyone, tourists, people coming from work etc, we had to queue and watched as more than 20 police officers herded suspicious looking people to a tent were they were searched. A drug dog was implied and guess what, some people had cannabis on them [what a surprise]. Others had their alcohol taken or got lectured about it [!]. All the while we had to join the long wait. Nowhere did it say [for tourists for example] that there is a festival and that they are sorry for any inconvenience [cause they weren't]. I was fuming as we had nothing on us and just wanted to get to the bloody festival.
When we got to the front, a moany officer "moved us on" with a gesture that I didn't find quite appropriate for someone who hasn't done anything but disembarked a train. We felt like cattle...guilty cattle.
When we were through we wondered what the fuck that was all about.
It wasn't to keep us safe from terrorists because only hippies were stopped. So it could have been to stop people from using/selling drugs...nope because most people there came from Cambridge or used cars and there were plenty of "dodgy's" about selling/ smoking openly, so that didn't work out.
The only thing we could come up with was that it was a great opportunities to score a few "arrests" or "stops" for free.
However I thought that the whole thing was utterly unnecessary, rude and an infringement of my [all train users] freedom. No apologies, just herding and picking. It made me sick and angry.
:furious:
Dingo667 said:
Assuming this story is accurate, and I am not suggesting the poster is gilding the lily regarding this incident, it would be interesting to see what will happen to those found with drugs as in my (on this occasion) well informed opinion, such stop and search tactics sounds illegal. The reason I say this is that a search under the Misuse of Drugs Act should be done on the basis that there is reliable information to say someone has drugs on them, or that the officers have reasonable cause to suspect they are in possession of drugs. The former is pretty obvious, i.e. info from Crimestoppers/snouts/surveillance etc, while the latter should be based on observation, slurred speech, smell on clothing, torn Rizla packets, big joint tucked behind ear etc. Being dressed like a hippy isn't reasonable grounds. Neither is the fact that said hippies may well be going to the 'Bob Marley Ganja is great festival'. That still isn't reasonable grounds to suspect. The fact that they singled out groups of people means this was a 'fishing' operation. The dog is used obviously to assist in the search, but adds the fear factor for those who have drugs concealed on or in their person. However, if something is found, then in court a good defence agent should be asking why their client was singled out to be searched, under what authority or act or order were people forced to go into the tent (because being forced into some place which you don't necessarily want to go is technically an arrest or a limited form of detention, so did those searched have their rights read? were they cautioned? Furthermore, if I were an innocent party and, for example I missed a connecting bus/train/flight because I had been subjected to random searching, I'd be asking under what grounds or under whose authority I was searched and if not satisfied demand a full explanation plus compensation if appropriate.
Now some may ask why on earth I would be standing up for people, some of whom may well have drugs such as heroin or ecstacy, or whatever on them. However I most assuredly am not. The problem with this type of operation is that while it is entirely right and proper to target drug dealers, Police bosses also set up these schemes to ensure their force meets government targets for stop and search or drugs seizures. They then issue instructions saying do this and do that, thereby forcing young cops to do searches illegally. I again say illegally, because if you don't have reasonable cause to suspect, then how can the search be lawful? It means the cop has to embelish their evidence or downright lie to make sure the courts will think they did have reasonable grounds, when the truth is, they simply rounded up a group of 60's throwbacks and subjected them to a random search. However, when the sh.t hits the fan, the Chief Constable or Chief Super won't be in the dock, it'll be the young cop who did the search and furthermore, the dealer will still get off because the whole thing was illegal.
Please don't waste time with saying the cops shouldn't take illegal orders etc etc. Cops/soldiers/customs or whoever take orders from bosses in good faith and do as they are told otherwise they will be on the dole. Thats the way the world works, and probably always will do.
:imo:
Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,608
I was going to make a point on the set up of the Survellance State in the light of progress by the BNP but saw this which is a worrying view that we really are all just 'potential criminals' in the eyes of the Police.
Full thing here..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... laims.html
Full thing here..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... laims.html
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,812
Here on this thread is the same detail about the Police in Cambs from someone else's eyes. Interesting to see.
http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/inde ... pic=112998
http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/inde ... pic=112998
Dingo667 said:
Not sure why the people on this forum are upset about the Police charging to Police the event. One says its a core function, but it isn't. The reason being that this is a commercial venture whereby someone makes a shedload of money, therefore the Police are entitled to charge for their services. The same thing happened up here in the wilds of Scotland when there was an event called the Solstice Event in Moray. As the numbers grew year in year out, the numbers of Police required increased, so eventually a charge was imposed on the organisers if they wanted the Police. They declined, but the consequence was the council refused to issue a licence for the event so it died a death. These days, it's even permissible for the Police to charge for Policing elections such as the most recent euro/council elections, although I understand they didn't.
Dingo667 said:
cambridge is a funny town, it has a police force which is known as being the most corrupt in western europe it has a horrendous cocaine problem, I could name names of prominant local business people who regularly end up in hospital through cocaine overdoses, and it has a large population of very very odd students most of whom appear to be boarder line psycotic.
Timble2
Imaginary Person
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,048
- Location
- In a Liminal Zone
It's this sort of thing, which has been happening around the Strawberry Fair, more in recent years that's pissing off some Cambridge residents and the police.
Cambridge News
Cambridge News
Mythopoeika
I am a meat popsicle
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2001
- Messages
- 51,768
- Location
- Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
KarlD said:
Really? Re the police, that's totally new to me, I had no idea.
They do have a lot of trouble with drug dealers, it's true.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2005
- Messages
- 175
escargot
Disciple of Marduk
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Messages
- 43,485
- Location
- HM The Tower of London
Techy went for a passport interview recently. He was expecting to be fingerprinted, which he's inclined to believe is the real point of the interview, but apparently that office is new and hasn't the equipment yet so that wasn't done.
He was asked a load of questions - where his parents were born, how long has he lived at his current address, etc. Fair enough, but then some were about me - which bank does your wife use? Who else has access to that account? (ie, is it a joint account?)
I'm assuming this information was found when they looked at our mortgage account, through a credit check. Bit creepy though.
He was asked a load of questions - where his parents were born, how long has he lived at his current address, etc. Fair enough, but then some were about me - which bank does your wife use? Who else has access to that account? (ie, is it a joint account?)
I'm assuming this information was found when they looked at our mortgage account, through a credit check. Bit creepy though.
Novena
Offanonagin
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2002
- Messages
- 891
Not sure where this should go, but I wanted to get some opinions on some draconian official behaviour that I witnessed recently on a train.
I was on a Southern train coming out of London. Some of the Southern carriages have a small section (about 12 seats or so) of First Class as you enter the door of the carriage. The rest of the carriage is entirely normal class. A woman and a man (not together as far as I could tell) got on and sat in the small First Class section. After a while, what looked like the ticket inspector (white shirt, black sleeveless type top) came through accompanied by another man who had a dark jacket with a company logo on the back (alas I failed to register what it said). They immediately started hassling the two passengers, who clearly didn't have first class tickets. I kept wondering why the passengers didn't just move, but then realised that the men were preventing the passengers from moving to a non-First Class seat (a matter of a few feet), blocking the passengers in and demanding that they pay the extra fee/fine. The male passenger paid, but the female passenger was making a fuss (quite rightly) which alerted my attention to it. I'm not sure if she paid or not in the end, but she was clearly very p*ssed off.
After this encounter was over, the men came through to where I was sitting, but didn't check ANYONE's tickets in the normal section. They went straight on down the train, presumably to the next First Class compartment to catch someone else out. This kind of behaviour sounds fishy to me. And deliberately blocking people in to the First Class section, whether they are trying it on or not (which I don't think these two were) is disgusting behaviour.
Has anyone else encountered this?
I was on a Southern train coming out of London. Some of the Southern carriages have a small section (about 12 seats or so) of First Class as you enter the door of the carriage. The rest of the carriage is entirely normal class. A woman and a man (not together as far as I could tell) got on and sat in the small First Class section. After a while, what looked like the ticket inspector (white shirt, black sleeveless type top) came through accompanied by another man who had a dark jacket with a company logo on the back (alas I failed to register what it said). They immediately started hassling the two passengers, who clearly didn't have first class tickets. I kept wondering why the passengers didn't just move, but then realised that the men were preventing the passengers from moving to a non-First Class seat (a matter of a few feet), blocking the passengers in and demanding that they pay the extra fee/fine. The male passenger paid, but the female passenger was making a fuss (quite rightly) which alerted my attention to it. I'm not sure if she paid or not in the end, but she was clearly very p*ssed off.
After this encounter was over, the men came through to where I was sitting, but didn't check ANYONE's tickets in the normal section. They went straight on down the train, presumably to the next First Class compartment to catch someone else out. This kind of behaviour sounds fishy to me. And deliberately blocking people in to the First Class section, whether they are trying it on or not (which I don't think these two were) is disgusting behaviour.
Has anyone else encountered this?
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,812
Call me fussy but when we once had first class tickets [a present, which would have costed £590], we really didn't want any peasants sitting in there for free. So when the ticket people came and chucked them out, I was very very pleased. 1st class is a treat and some eejits think they can just have it for nothing. So in this case I agree with the inspectors. There!
8)
8)
Novena
Offanonagin
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2002
- Messages
- 891
But the point is that they didn't chuck them out of the First Class section - they made every effort to keep them in the First Class section, blocking them and standing over them - and then demanded money off them for being in it. If they'd said "Bugger off to another seat" I'm sure the passengers would have done so, but they didn't.Dingo667 said:
Whether you consider them to be "peasants" or not (??), it's pretty fishy behaviour I think.
Mythopoeika
I am a meat popsicle
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2001
- Messages
- 51,768
- Location
- Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Zoffre may have a point. They may be fake ticket inspectors.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,812
Mythopoeika said:
Now I didn't think of that, but that's a completely different thing and should go under frauds.
I still believe people who sneak into 1st class should be made to pay, its so expensive and so unfair to those that have paid. There is a reason why it is called 1st class, so you don't have to put up with chavs or single mums and screaming babies.
Now I agree that they didn't have the right to keep them in there but as I grew up in Germany I have to say, when people got caught on our trains without a ticket and refused to show ID, they were allowed to call the police who were then greeting them at the next stop, to the delight of all that did pay.
LordRsmacker
Abominable Snowman
- Joined
- May 1, 2006
- Messages
- 724
I can understand anyone being pissed off if they have paid and someone else is trying to get into First Class without paying, but if the train was choc-a-bloc everywhere else, then fair play to them for finding a seat.
When the next big train crash occurs, and it will, sooner or later, I feel pretty sure that there will be plenty of casualties caused by all the people who haven't got a seat standing in the aisles. On that day, I sincerely hope that the tossers who run the rail company get banged up for a long time.
Personally, on the odd occasion I have to use a train, it pisses me off seriously if I have to sit on my bag in the aisle, and yet I get threatened with being turfed off by some half-wit ticket collector if I won't let him, or anyone else pass. Sod 'em, if I have to sit in the aisle, then that's where I'll stay. Provide me with a seat, you know rush hour trains are always rammed, put more carriages or trains on.
A great help for the belligerent traveller is the whiff of alcohol on one's breath, nothing makes officious tossers more wary of harassing you, especially if you are a grizzly nasty-looking dog like me, they really don't want a chinning, which is exactly what anyone accosting me in First Class would have got.
When the next big train crash occurs, and it will, sooner or later, I feel pretty sure that there will be plenty of casualties caused by all the people who haven't got a seat standing in the aisles. On that day, I sincerely hope that the tossers who run the rail company get banged up for a long time.
Personally, on the odd occasion I have to use a train, it pisses me off seriously if I have to sit on my bag in the aisle, and yet I get threatened with being turfed off by some half-wit ticket collector if I won't let him, or anyone else pass. Sod 'em, if I have to sit in the aisle, then that's where I'll stay. Provide me with a seat, you know rush hour trains are always rammed, put more carriages or trains on.
A great help for the belligerent traveller is the whiff of alcohol on one's breath, nothing makes officious tossers more wary of harassing you, especially if you are a grizzly nasty-looking dog like me, they really don't want a chinning, which is exactly what anyone accosting me in First Class would have got.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,812
Layla said:
everyone knows exactly who I mean by THE single mum, or at least I hoped that I didn't have to describe in detail what I meant. Have to be careful nowadays. And posh children may cry but you'd hope that the mum or guardian or guardians may try and sort it out rather than ignore it whilst on the mobile
Quake42
Warrior Princess
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,312
Back in the day the old national conditions of carriage used to state explicitly that a standard class ticket holder could sit in first class if:
- there were no seats in standard class; and
- there were no first class ticket holders who required that seat.
This seemed an eminently sensible arrangement to me. I suspect it has fallen by the wayside with privatisation.
- there were no seats in standard class; and
- there were no first class ticket holders who required that seat.
This seemed an eminently sensible arrangement to me. I suspect it has fallen by the wayside with privatisation.
Dingo667 said:Layla said:
everyone knows exactly who I mean by THE single mum, or at least I hoped that I didn't have to describe in detail what I meant. Have to be careful nowadays. And posh children may cry but you'd hope that the mum or guardian or guardians may try and sort it out rather than ignore it whilst on the mobile
Can you tell me why you assume that these women are single mums, they may have a partner at home. Is the absence of a ring a sure sign that they are single? Or are you assuming they are single by a certain mode of dress or certain child care style, or their age? or their bahaviour while sat in first class carriages? Or are you going by the media assumption that if a child is badly behaved or neglected that the mother is automatically single?
Unfortunately 'single mum' has become short hand for lazy, benefit scounging and anti social. 'Chav' is a pejorative term while I believe 'single mum' is not.
Well...
I work as an electronics engineer developing these types of ANPR cameras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_ ... ecognition
which are used for things like congestion charging, motorway traffic flow monitoring and the police use them for catching untaxed and uninsurerd drivers.
The police/security services do use them for looking for vehicle movements involved in major crimes and terrorist type activities.
Anyway there was a case recently of a woman who went to an anti-war demo last year and the police put her registration details on a watch list witht the result that she got stopped about 20 times a week so she complained to the police complaints people which got her nowhere. this drove her a bit nuts and she started phoning our offices and leaving death threats on the answerphone and that eventualy got her arrested.
So the police do abuse their powers on a regular basis mainly because they know they can get away with it.At the same time we do get threatened by nutters who believe that we make speed cameras and that they should be allowed to speed if they want.
I work as an electronics engineer developing these types of ANPR cameras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_ ... ecognition
which are used for things like congestion charging, motorway traffic flow monitoring and the police use them for catching untaxed and uninsurerd drivers.
The police/security services do use them for looking for vehicle movements involved in major crimes and terrorist type activities.
Anyway there was a case recently of a woman who went to an anti-war demo last year and the police put her registration details on a watch list witht the result that she got stopped about 20 times a week so she complained to the police complaints people which got her nowhere. this drove her a bit nuts and she started phoning our offices and leaving death threats on the answerphone and that eventualy got her arrested.
So the police do abuse their powers on a regular basis mainly because they know they can get away with it.At the same time we do get threatened by nutters who believe that we make speed cameras and that they should be allowed to speed if they want.