Another Step on the Slippery Slope

[Lucifer Box]

>If the Torys got in it would be a shoot to kill policy - remember those IRA suspects on the rock.

It was the SAS who shot them, not the police. And what's all this about a "shoot to kill" policy? What's the alternative, a "shoot to graze" policy? You really are a prize idiot.

I think Knobjockey has been watching too many films and thinks the police can do things like shoot a gun out of somebody's hand.

[Mordac]

>If the Torys got in it would be a shoot to kill policy - remember those IRA suspects on the rock.

It was the SAS who shot them, not the police. And what's all this about a "shoot to kill" policy? What's the alternative, a "shoot to graze" policy? You really are a prize idiot.

[mcquiggd]

More tory propoganda, much more likely is that the police will spray/stun/shoot you. If the Torys got in it would be a shoot to kill policy - remember those IRA suspects on the rock.

Better than the New Labour policy of giving them offices in the House of Westminster or letting convicted murderers out of prison for political reasons, while jailing serving soldiers for obeying the current rules of engagement.

It is trial and jury by the bullet, totally unfair taxation, no pubic services, corporate greed, corruption and nepotism.

Bearing in mind Iraq, Gordon Brown, the NHS (as one example), Lakshmi Mittal, Derry Irvine, Peter Mandelson, Lord Falconer et al you just summed up New Labour very succinctly.

[Jabberwocky]

You guys are forgetting something

The police will only arrest you if you are seen as non-threatening and not dangerous.

More tory propoganda, much more likely is that the police will spray/stun/shoot you. If the Torys got in it would be a shoot to kill policy - remember those IRA suspects on the rock. It is trial and jury by the bullet, totally unfair taxation, no pubic services, corporate greed, corruption and nepotism. If the Tories get in it will be that way for decades - have you not learnt from past mistakes ?

[Rebecca Loos]

You guys are forgetting something

The police will only arrest you if you are seen as non-threatening and not dangerous.
Anyone looking like they might offer a bit of resistance when arrested will be left well alone, under the Police Officers Health & Safety Guidelines 2006, which allows police officers to refuse to arrest someone who "might be considering the possibility of threatening to inflict bodily harm" to police officers.

Under NL's new guidelines, only offenders aged either 80+ or under 3 will be candidates for immediate arrest, so as not to compromise the physical integrity of police officers.

As ever with NL, creating new offences is easy (done in the safety of offices and parliament), doing the corresponding arrests and physical implementation is proving a tad bit harder

(look at the % of ignored ASBOs for illustration)

[AtW]

do you not think a charge, any charge, would simply be trumped up?

They can set you up now just as easy - penalising financially specific policemen is probably not wise, but making the State to pay is fair enough - it will only apply to handful of suspects anyway, so total payouts will be less than weekly National Lottery jackpot, and everybody can sleep well - if you get arrested for 3 months you will make a million, sounds fair to me.

[Lucifer Box]

There - how many of you would mind that? Heck, I won't mind if they arrest me - I know they won't prove it and it will make me wealthy. A nice balanced system - of course those policement who arrest people and them let them go with big paycheque will lose part of their salary or something like this.

Ah, but if you have a police force that can arrest people for no reason without charge and without giving them access to a lawyer (like we do in the UK as of yesterday), and the arresting officer/force stands to lose financially when it turns out the person has done nothing wrong, do you not think a charge, any charge, would simply be trumped up? Or even, perish the thought, that a David Kelly affair would occur?

[TGAOTU]

of course those policement who arrest people and them let them go with big paycheque will lose part of their salary or something like this.

Speak Enlish you moron!

[AtW]

The anti-terrorism act can be quoted so you can then be held for a month without cause, reason, evidence or even knowing what it is you are accused of.

All that bullcrap about arrest for month or two months misses simple solution - ok, allow the Govt to arrest without charging for 2-3-6 months, fine, BUT - if no case brought up and won in the courts of law, then the innocent person who was detained get compensated, very well in fact, say 1 month is £100k, 2 months £250k and 3 months will be £1 mln.

There - how many of you would mind that? Heck, I won't mind if they arrest me - I know they won't prove it and it will make me wealthy. A nice balanced system - of course those policement who arrest people and them let them go with big paycheque will lose part of their salary or something like this.

[Lucifer Box]

Either that or prosecutable under the serious organised crimes act.

[Lucifer Box]

Mine's a Synthi-Burger



DP, that's 10 years in the iso-cubes for you, for making me laugh so much. Unfortunately, you have more or less hit the nail on the head. As we have already in certain circumstances empowered the police to act as judge and jury with limited to no right of appeal (e.g. on-the-spot fines), we are perilously close to allowing the police to arbitrarily imprison people (if you are accused under the prevention of terrorism act, you might argue we already have as the police can impose the equivalent of a two month prison sentence on you without having to tell you why).

Still, citizens, I'm sure if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear, eh?

[DimPrawn]

"You are under arrest under the Not Voting Labour Laws 2007. I hereby sentance you to death...."

[Lucifer Box]

So, after assuring us that new draconian powers to stop people under anti-terrorist legislation would be applied correctly and sparingly (4,500 detentions in Hampshire in one quarter alone so clearly it was a previously unknown definition of sparingly and correctly that was in mind), the state starts to put in place the next stage of its plan to ensure total control over its citizens.

Police are to be given sweeping powers to arrest people for every offence, including dropping litter, failure to wear a seat belt and other minor misdemeanours. The measures, which come into force on Jan 1, are the biggest expansion in decades of police powers to deprive people of their liberty.

At present, officers can generally arrest people if they suspect them of committing an offence which carries at least five years in prison. They will now have the discretion to detain someone if they suspect any offence and think that an arrest is "necessary".

So you can now be arrested for anything (or nothing) at any time, as long as a police officer thinks it is "necessary". The anti-terrorism act can be quoted so you can then be held for a month without cause, reason, evidence or even knowing what it is you are accused of.

Welcome to the friendly 21st Century face of the fluffy, cuddly police state. Still, I'm sure it will make people who believe there are bearded fanatics hiding behind every street light feel safer at night. Until it's them or one of their family who's arrested because it is "necessary" of course.