Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
I can understand this, but isn't it a declaration that a permanent UK police state is unavoidable?
I long to see a day when England is a permanent police state. Maybe then we will see a time when people can stroll through parks without being attacked...you can use a money machine without fear of having your card details stolen and your bank account emptied and where agents will be viewed in the same light as car salesmen!
You are a deluded fool if you think England will ever be a police state!
A shoot to kill policy against 'known terrorists' as was the case in Gibralta a while back, is one thing.
But a shoot to kill policy against those suspected, is something entirely different.
And a shoot to kill policy is not the same as an execution policy.
I have no particular qualms about either of these policies against known terrorists. But against suspects ... oh dear ... watch out and be careful. Be very, very careful Gt. Britain.
Sorry, Wendigo, I'm still confused, What is your point?
Not much really, I just get the feeling that accepting you must kill innocent people to try and ensure you get the guilty is the thin end of the wedge.
How long will it be before this principle is abused, where the excuse "I thought he was a suicide bomber" is used for a convenient murder?
I find it ironic that we spent billions of pounds and many lives getting rid of Saddam Hussein, and yet we are taking another small step towards his kind of world.
Comment