Tweet
Spot the real terrorist.
* 30th Aug, 2008 at 6:38 PM
There have been a lot of vaguely worded laws with draconian sentences attached under the banner of 'combating terrorism'. How many terrorists have these laws actually caught? Not counting anyone caught by good old fashoined police work and the application of pre-Legislative Labour laws. How many real, actual terrorist captures can be directly attributed to the new laws?
42 days detention without charge. How many has that caught? Secret autopsies. How many has that caught? Stop and search. Phone tapping. Email interception. Watching people's homes. How many? No, you can't count the elderly man ejected from Labour's party conference for asking difficult questions.
How many of the non-police given these powers are even using them to look for terrorism? They are catching people who leave their bins open a little. They are watching people in case their child is in the wrong catchment area for their school. They are invading people's bedrooms to hunt out unauthorised cohabiters. They catch and fine litter-droppers and dog-walkers who don't scoop the poop. Councils can tap your phone and internet connections and don't have to tell you they're doing it. All in the name of combating terrorism. So how many terrorists have they caught? No, you can't include the pensioner fined for putting a baked bean tin in the wrong bin.
Sure, some are going to come up with the recent arrest of four (or was it five?) men for discussing vague threats on an Internet chat board. A board any real terrorist would realise is going to be monitored by police, and so any real terrorist isn't going to discuss their plans there. Four or five men talking, arrested under anti-terrorism laws for the heinous crime of being enraged at our government. If they had been found in possession of actual weaponry, fair enough - but there's been no mention of that. They might have downloaded some files from the Internet, but that does not prove they intended to use them. No matter. The possession of anything that might help a terrorist is illegal. So if you have any knives in your kitchen, watch out. If you dye your hair with peroxide, watch out. If you are in possession of flour, plastic bottles or nails, watch out. Those are all things that 'might help a terrorist'. God help you if you own a balaclava.
Besides, were the men caught using the new laws? Or by using police monitoring of a public site (no need for a warrant to do that) followed by requests to ISP's for location details (which probably does need a warrant but was certainly already possible before the new laws - it was how all those paedo rings were caught). The only thing the anti-terror laws have added is the ability to make an arrest for a thought crime. Previously, these men would have to have been proved to be doing something, or definitely intending to do something. Now, they just need to discuss it.
If you are stopped and searched, bear in mind that the police are looking for anything that might 'be of use to a terrorist'. Including maps or photographs of the area. I don't go to London very often, and will make an effort to go there less often in future, but when I do I really, really need a map. I usually get them from that well known terrorist supply shop, W H Smith. Since I'm not often there, I like to take photos. Oops.
Anyway, most people now believe that taking photos in public is illegal. Try it yourself. It's a stealth law, sneaked in by manipulation of public opinion. Eventually, since it's assumed to be law anyway, hardly anyone will be surprised when it really becomes one. In the interests of stopping terrorists. And tourists. They sound similar so they must be the same thing, right?
Lately, children have been arrested for using fake ID for under-age drinking. Well, under-age drinking was illegal before. As was having forged identity documents with intent to deceive. So what's changed? Now, they can be arrested and charged under anti-terrorist legislation which carries much stiffer penalties.
So the anti terrorist laws have achieved the following so far:
- Silencing of difficult questions at Labour party conferences.
- Spying on those who claim to live alone, in case they have friends.
- Spying on people putting out bins.
- Tapping phones and Internet for any purpose at all.
- Catching dog-walkers, litterers and fly-tippers.
- Spying on people to make sure they send their kids to the approved school.
- Random stop-and-search to catch any stray tourists. Sorry, terrorists.
- Arresting people for saying bad things about the Prime Monster.
- Arresting children for sneaking a quick beer.
- Removing the need to tell a suspect what he/she is charged with while they fester in a cell for 42 days.
- Removing the need to explain why someone died in custody.
- Removing the assumption of 'innocent until proven guilty'. If you remain silent, as you used to be allowed to do, you are presumed guilty.
- Allowing park wardens to decide who is a registered sex offender and allowing them to detain said alleged offender.
- Alowing shopping centres to detain people.
- I'm sure there's more I've missed.
And most of all, setting up a perception in the public's mind that anything they don't like must be illegal. Smoking in the street, taking a photo, filming, having a dog that barks, playing music in the middle of the day, parking outside their house... the pettiness has no limit. Everything is illegal except what's specifically approved. That is really what the public, the non-police mini-Hitlers, and many of the actual police themselves believe now. So when it happens, nobody is going to be shocked. They are conditioned to accept it.
Yet how many real, actual terrorists have these new laws caught? How many arrests of definite, proven terrorists can be absolutely said to be a direct result of all these new powers? How many captures of real terrorists have there been that could not have been done under the laws we had before?
Can someone name one?
And can anyone work out what those laws were really for?
thanks to
underdogs bite upwards
* 30th Aug, 2008 at 6:38 PM
There have been a lot of vaguely worded laws with draconian sentences attached under the banner of 'combating terrorism'. How many terrorists have these laws actually caught? Not counting anyone caught by good old fashoined police work and the application of pre-Legislative Labour laws. How many real, actual terrorist captures can be directly attributed to the new laws?
42 days detention without charge. How many has that caught? Secret autopsies. How many has that caught? Stop and search. Phone tapping. Email interception. Watching people's homes. How many? No, you can't count the elderly man ejected from Labour's party conference for asking difficult questions.
How many of the non-police given these powers are even using them to look for terrorism? They are catching people who leave their bins open a little. They are watching people in case their child is in the wrong catchment area for their school. They are invading people's bedrooms to hunt out unauthorised cohabiters. They catch and fine litter-droppers and dog-walkers who don't scoop the poop. Councils can tap your phone and internet connections and don't have to tell you they're doing it. All in the name of combating terrorism. So how many terrorists have they caught? No, you can't include the pensioner fined for putting a baked bean tin in the wrong bin.
Sure, some are going to come up with the recent arrest of four (or was it five?) men for discussing vague threats on an Internet chat board. A board any real terrorist would realise is going to be monitored by police, and so any real terrorist isn't going to discuss their plans there. Four or five men talking, arrested under anti-terrorism laws for the heinous crime of being enraged at our government. If they had been found in possession of actual weaponry, fair enough - but there's been no mention of that. They might have downloaded some files from the Internet, but that does not prove they intended to use them. No matter. The possession of anything that might help a terrorist is illegal. So if you have any knives in your kitchen, watch out. If you dye your hair with peroxide, watch out. If you are in possession of flour, plastic bottles or nails, watch out. Those are all things that 'might help a terrorist'. God help you if you own a balaclava.
Besides, were the men caught using the new laws? Or by using police monitoring of a public site (no need for a warrant to do that) followed by requests to ISP's for location details (which probably does need a warrant but was certainly already possible before the new laws - it was how all those paedo rings were caught). The only thing the anti-terror laws have added is the ability to make an arrest for a thought crime. Previously, these men would have to have been proved to be doing something, or definitely intending to do something. Now, they just need to discuss it.
If you are stopped and searched, bear in mind that the police are looking for anything that might 'be of use to a terrorist'. Including maps or photographs of the area. I don't go to London very often, and will make an effort to go there less often in future, but when I do I really, really need a map. I usually get them from that well known terrorist supply shop, W H Smith. Since I'm not often there, I like to take photos. Oops.
Anyway, most people now believe that taking photos in public is illegal. Try it yourself. It's a stealth law, sneaked in by manipulation of public opinion. Eventually, since it's assumed to be law anyway, hardly anyone will be surprised when it really becomes one. In the interests of stopping terrorists. And tourists. They sound similar so they must be the same thing, right?
Lately, children have been arrested for using fake ID for under-age drinking. Well, under-age drinking was illegal before. As was having forged identity documents with intent to deceive. So what's changed? Now, they can be arrested and charged under anti-terrorist legislation which carries much stiffer penalties.
So the anti terrorist laws have achieved the following so far:
- Silencing of difficult questions at Labour party conferences.
- Spying on those who claim to live alone, in case they have friends.
- Spying on people putting out bins.
- Tapping phones and Internet for any purpose at all.
- Catching dog-walkers, litterers and fly-tippers.
- Spying on people to make sure they send their kids to the approved school.
- Random stop-and-search to catch any stray tourists. Sorry, terrorists.
- Arresting people for saying bad things about the Prime Monster.
- Arresting children for sneaking a quick beer.
- Removing the need to tell a suspect what he/she is charged with while they fester in a cell for 42 days.
- Removing the need to explain why someone died in custody.
- Removing the assumption of 'innocent until proven guilty'. If you remain silent, as you used to be allowed to do, you are presumed guilty.
- Allowing park wardens to decide who is a registered sex offender and allowing them to detain said alleged offender.
- Alowing shopping centres to detain people.
- I'm sure there's more I've missed.
And most of all, setting up a perception in the public's mind that anything they don't like must be illegal. Smoking in the street, taking a photo, filming, having a dog that barks, playing music in the middle of the day, parking outside their house... the pettiness has no limit. Everything is illegal except what's specifically approved. That is really what the public, the non-police mini-Hitlers, and many of the actual police themselves believe now. So when it happens, nobody is going to be shocked. They are conditioned to accept it.
Yet how many real, actual terrorists have these new laws caught? How many arrests of definite, proven terrorists can be absolutely said to be a direct result of all these new powers? How many captures of real terrorists have there been that could not have been done under the laws we had before?
Can someone name one?
And can anyone work out what those laws were really for?
thanks to
underdogs bite upwards
Comment