gg Britain

[Nodrog]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1288424/posts

yeah yeah I know I'm linking to another forum but I just read the article in a (physical) copy of the Spectator and didn't want to type it up myself.

[Carpeia]

GG Noddy,
6k posts.. ur still posting like a crazy man i see :-)

[Proteus]

The nations not so blest as thee,
Shall in their turns to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish, flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves!

Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame,
All their attempts to bend thee down
Will but arouse, arouse thy generous flame;
But work their woe, and thy renown.

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves!

Oh.

[SYMM]

Just me who has no sympathy for the twat writing that?

[Phalon]

Similar situation with my stepfather who was travelling with his unloaded and broken (as in in-half not fked up) shotgun and ammunition to a local shoot at 5:30 one november morning.

Bear in mind we live in the countryside and it takes about 4 fkin hours for an ambulance to arrive. But low and behold there were two plods in a car 'randomly' searching people (there are less than 100 people in the hamlet where i live, i'd have liked to have seen them stop a farmer). He got nicked for having an offensive weapon and ammunition with no apparent recreational use. (he was wearing his shooting flax, wellies and cap with our fkin gun dog in the back! He was also carrying his shooting licence)

Funnily enough when he got to being interviewed it was thrown out as, as he already knew, it is perfectly legal to carry your licensed weapon about in such a manner.

The police are forever wasting tax payers money and risking people's safety and confidence with such stupid antics.

On principal i have never 'volunteered' to be involved in any police searches or such. They always have to say 'we are within our rights to arrest you' before i cooperate.

[SYMM]

The difference here is that carrying the kind of knife the guy had, and the asp that he had, isn't legal- yet being the (probably, as he's writing for the Spectator) upper-class twat he is, he thinks laws only apply to everyone else, and so when he gets caught he tries to kick up a fuss.

[mist]

to be fair, i had no sympathy right up to when the police officer assaulted him, and he was arrested for being assaulted.

that i don't understand

-mist

[Dante Hicks]

Even if it isn't legal to carry the weapons he had doesn't actually make the law any less stupid. But I'm sure someone will come along soon to this thread to moronically repeat some shit about how you should always obey the law.

Anyway, entirely unsurprising although the entire tone of the article seems to be "wtf, I'm not poor/black*/arab!".

Oh and the PCSOs aren't that bad, they're mildly liked in the area where I work (the office I was in they used to come in once or twice a day to discuss problems on the estate and stuff).

* He may be black, but he makes no reference to this in the article that I noticed.

[Phalon]

I agree.

Although the knife could probably have been argued as a 'tool' for something whereas the inclusion of the baton as well probably got suspicions rising.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by SYMM

Just me who has no sympathy for the twat writing that?

Nope, I also got the impression he may have embellished the story a little too. I bet he's one of those fox hunting cnuts as well

~Vaio~

[JonnyBGood]

After a mere three weeks’ training, a CSO can give you a £30 fixed penalty ticket for such minor derelictions as riding your bike on a pavement, or dropping a crisps packet. He or she may take away your booze if you are drinking in public, or confiscate the fags of an underage smoker. These CSOs may detain you by force for 30 minutes, pending the arrival of a police officer, if they think you may be guilty of an arrestable offence.

What's that? People can fine you a small amount for breaking perfectly acceptable laws? Outrageous!

PS Was he going to assault the Ministry of Defence with a penknife and baton? I'd pay good money to see that.

[Vaio]

He could have chipped away at the mortar between the bricks and caused fatalities when the walls collapsed.

~Vaio~

[Sunday8pm]

In canada today, a bus got stuck in the first snowfall.

That is all.

The only thing that has ever raised my concerns in Canada so far, was an angry drunk irish guy who missed his stop and wanted off the bus, back in february.

Which leads me to believe that it is very much enviromental and cultural conditioning that leads to a life of crime, and perhaps the gene pool you fish from as well lol.

[wu_trax]

so these 'police community support officers' are simply people who want to be good citzens and want to help the police to hunt down evil terrorists? they get almost no training, but have 'some' power over normal people?
i would be worried about that (and i live in facist-wonderland here)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

so these 'police community support officers' are simply people who want to be good citzens and want to help the police to hunt down evil terrorists? they get almost no training, but have 'some' power over normal people?

Their use isn't actually against terrorism on the whole, and I'd imagine they'd only be interested in that in a few key areas (e.g. Central London). On the whole they are more there to do stupid crap which the regular police can't be bothered to do.

For instance, one of the biggest complaints from residents I get my work is groups of kids hanging around the streets. The fact kids do this is utterly unsurprising - there's nothing for them to do, they can't hang around the shopping areas (the businesses ask them to move on instantly if they don't have money), they're too young/poor to go to bars/clubs and genuine youth facilities are few and far between. So they hang around, some of them getting into petty vandalism / thieving / drugs, but most of all they sit on the stairwells in estates, or in parks.

If you phone the police about some kids outside your house then the police will not respond quickly, if at all. Due to the centralisation of police budgets / resources the local police station which is open 24/7 is generally miles away, and in most cases will be dealing with serious fights, stabbings, etc. I experienced this first-hand when some dude was threatening to kill me and it took an hour for the police to show up (to a 999 call).

So anyway, this really pisses off people (especially old people, the ones who vote) so the government dreamt up this "quasi-police" (they're generally called "police without powers" where I work). They cost less (they're paid about 8-9k less in London I think, possibly more), could be deployed immediately and can do all the pointless crap like asking kids to move along. They're not there to deal with serious crimes but just to be a uniformed presence on the streets.

[Phang]

What happened to this guy shouldn't have happened, but the tone of the article as well as what the guy himself says and does makes me think that if it was going to happen to anyone, I'm glad it's him. I'd say he's pretty much wrong in all his views (particularly the fines for littering etc thing, that's absurd to disagree with).


edit: looking at the responses, 'BritishBulldog' should be shot in the face on principle.

[Weeks]

Doesn't really surprise me.

Keeping up security is one thing,
but arresting someone because they're carrying a penknife, which is a perfectly legal thing to do, just gets ridiculous. There was no need to arrest him.

They should be focusing their efforts in different ways, as i can't really see this helping to fight terrorism.

You could argue that driving past an important government building with a penknife is suspicious, and that you should keeps tabs on that person. But arresting someone for this without any other intelligence makes the state look like terrorists. Terrorising the nation.

[Weeks]

Anyway, as it isn't illigal to carry a swiss army knife (as the blade isn't big enough- i'm assuming the blade isn't big enough) surely the police can't do anything.

He doesn't really elaborate on that.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Weeks

driving past an important government building with a penknife is suspicious, and that you should keeps tabs on that person.

Heh.

state look like terrorists. Terrorising the nation.

Welcome to reality. We hope you enjoyed your journey.

[mist]

i got the impression that the problem was his riot batton thingy.

ofc, had it been a baseball bat he'd have been perfectly within his rights. this makes sense. honest.

-mist

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by SYMM

Just me who has no sympathy for the twat writing that?

No, I'm sure there are lots of other morons who believe that someone holding views they don't like justifies violence against them by the state.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

No, I'm sure there are lots of other morons who believe that someone holding views they don't like justifies violence against them by the state.

it doesn't justify it. it just makes it less of a bitter pill to swallow.

[wu_trax]

btw, did anyone check the rest of that webpage? the comments are just brilliant. i dont think that jolt-delta-force forum was any worse.

[Phang]

Once disarmed, a people are totally at the mercy of the worst bullies the police can produce.

in this context, the implications...i don't know whether i'm stunned, disturbed, or horrified

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

in this context, the implications...i don't know whether i'm stunned, disturbed, or horrified

Eh? What's wrong with that?

edit : Not that I agree that small arms are a good way of fighting government oppression, but the overall concept is fairly reasonable.

[Kurashima]

British Bulldog was a well known troll on SA for anyone who remembers that sort of thing.

And id be VERY interested to see if the blade on a Swiss Army Knife is actually illegal because its a locking blade. If that was the case, id expect a Daily Mail "Outrage" campaign to be started very shortly indeed.

[Dante Hicks]

I doubt they're (Swiss Army) illegal either.

The baton is definitely illegal though since most sites on the internet won't ship to the UK anymore (I was thinking of getting one at one point) and UK sties don't seem to sell them at all.

[wu_trax]

whats a baton? the translation in my dictionary doesnt make any sence in this context

[Dante Hicks]

A metal bar designed for hitting people, like the police carry.

Obviously metal bars are legal, but telescopic batons aren't afaik.

[wu_trax]

ok, i think i know what you mean, but dont you think a large kitchen knife is just as dangerous?

[Dante Hicks]

Well you could be arrested for carrying a knife too.

But it's the usual "a knife could have other uses" whereas a baton is pretty much purely for self-defence / offence.

[Obliterate]

http://www.bushcraftuk.co.uk/articles/knife_law.html This article provides quite a useful overview of the law regarding knives in the UK. (Basically, knives with a blade longer than 3 inches are illegal unless you have a good reason for carrying one). The actual law (Knives Act 1997 can be found here

The Prevention of Crime act states that: "Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie with him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence..." An offensive weapon is, according to the law, "...any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him [or by some other person]."

So "technically" you're not allowed to carry a baton around in your car or on your person. To be taken to a police station and formally charged is very extreme though. I doubt this would happen in all cases - probably just a case of a pissed off policeman taking his annoyance out on the first person he could.

[mist]

i'd have said stopping your kids beating each other with it was a reasonable excuse. given the recent smacking debates, i'm surprised he's not on some form of medals list!

-mist

[pig]

TBH i was thinking about this article today walking to uni and I have come to the conclusion it is bs.

[Dead_Meat]

I reckon you could cause a fair bit of damage with the tyre lever kept in almost every car in Britain & the world. More than you could with some crappy foldaway baton.

I also reckon you could cut someone fairly badly with an ice scraper, and probably kill with a biro stuck in the eye with enough force.

Where's Idi with his ninja death moves when you need him???

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

They should make everyone a policeman by default.

Have a banana.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Phang

in this context, the implications...i don't know whether i'm stunned, disturbed, or horrified

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow Britons to carry arms. History shows that all states who have allowed their citizens to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well you could be arrested for carrying a knife too.

Baaaaaa.

But it's the usual "a knife could have other uses" whereas a baton is pretty much purely for self-defence / offence.

What? No cheerleaders? You poor bastards.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow Britons to carry arms. History shows that all states who have allowed their citizens to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.

oh, shut up, do.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

oh, shut up, do.

Is this your new thing? Posting some kind of "OMG I'm shocked", or "lol" to someone's viewpoint (which might not be 100% mainstream) and then refusing to explain why they're wrong / outrageous / hilarious?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Is this your new thing? Posting some kind of "OMG I'm shocked", or "lol" to someone's viewpoint (which might not be 100% mainstream) and then refusing to explain why they're wrong / outrageous / hilarious?

boo to you.

fine then.

now, i'm all for a bit of raging against the machine. However, the idea that killing cops for doing their duty in a context where the duty is fairly sensible (carrying illegal weapons outside key government buildings) seems to take the edge of reason and then pick it up and slit somebody's throat with it.

As for nod's paraphrase, he was just being a tit.

[Dante Hicks]

The original comment wasn't anything to do with killing cops. It was making the usual (fairly tired, tbh) argument that an unarmed populace is more likely to face government oppression (as there's no easy way to resist). While you might reject the argument in general it's easy to see the logic behind it and it's not exactly something to be 'horrified' by.

And "carrying illegal weapons outside a key government building" is somewhat taking the incident out of context (carrying a small baton in a car outside a well defended building).

[Nusselt]

Surely its more sensible to have a more rigorous process by which the government may pass laws of oppression then it is to arm the populous? If the worry is the government doing things it shouldn't do (which is a sensible concern) either limit the powers of the government or make it a lot more difficult for them to act in the areas you're concerned about or both, combine all that with a requirement of full disclosure (freedom of information). In this case it seems more situation of the police being utter tits (which isn't uncommon) i don't think legalising guns would have helped in that particular situation. The police (from my expereince) have a tendency towards jobsworth ness. AFAIK the police are allowed a certain amount of discretion the officers in question should have combined that with a degree intelligence.

The law/politicians are a problem to a certain extent but the individual copper more so. If we take a US/UK comparison the right to bear arms in the US doesn't stop the police there from being utter pricks either.

Interesting article although it did have a degree of 'how dare they do this to me' as opposed to 'how dare they do this'.

[Weeks]

Oh gawd, it's turning into one of those threads

[Weeks]

p.s what does "gg" mean?

[wu_trax]

good game ?
(at least it used to mean that back in the good old times when i still played online-RTS-games)

PS: everyone register at that place. great fun!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

Surely its more sensible to have a more rigorous process by which the government may pass laws of oppression then it is to arm the populous?

It's not an either/or is it? I think the issue is that ultimately, governments all have a sort of paper sovereignty, irrespective of constitutional measures. The British Parliament could revoke all human rights legilsation (theoretically) and pass a law to ban Jews or something.

An armed populace, the argument goes, would be a very real physical check on political power of governments.

[Nusselt]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

An armed populace, the argument goes, would be a very real physical check on political power of governments.

The state will always have more power relative to the individual (in a physical 'ive got bigger guns then you' sense) if you let the population have guns the state still has tanks* etc i understand the concern that ultimately the population should have the ability to check what the government does but i think the way to achieve it is by focussing on the government and not on the people. You're also right it isn't an either/or argument but there are non-violent or passive agressive ways to 'make trouble' (fuel protesters/rolling road blocks/bringing london to a halt etc) . I think its more pragmatic to keep a government from functioning too effeciently and limit its time in power, thereby 'nipping in the bud' the chances of oppression then it is to arm the populous to deal with a worst case scenario. Perhaps the ablity of the state to purschase weapons and arm itself should also be severely limited?

I do see the need for something to deal with a 'worst case scenario' though, one of the problems i have with the war on terror is that the 'threat' in my mind is being blown out of proportion, OBL cannot 'destroy' the US/western world. Even if (big IF) he were to accuire nuclear weapons the likely hood of him wiping out the west and oblitarating what it 'stands for' is miniscule (sp? heh) compared to the damage the state can do through 'anti-terror' legislation. OBL will one day die, these fcking laws won't so i should have the right to make it expensive for the state, in all relavant terms, if it ever comes for me.

*even if you allow individuals to own functionally firing tanks the state still has the financial clout to buy more or better ones

[Ninja_spammer]

I dont think that an armed populace is a check /balance in the sense that they could defeat a standing army if push came to shove but an armed populace represents 30 million armed men and women who could push back against the goverment in a very direct manner, all it takes is one lone gunmen and your looking for a new el presidente or police chief or city mayor or head of statesec.

As for OBL's threat to Britain.......what is that again exactly?

[mist]

osama bin laden, i'm guessing

-mist