Britain a police state for violent anti-establishment people

[alanschu]

Why was six afraid of seven?

because seven eight nine

 

I have not heard that one in about 15 years

[Walsingham]

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 

 

You keep saying that, but I no no think it means what you think it means.

It's all about control.

 

Nonsesne. It's about the passionate rythm of the salsa.

[Oerwinde]

The night time is the right time.

 

Everyone else was doing it.

[Lucius]

Why was six afraid of seven?

because seven eight nine

 

I have not heard that one in about 15 years

That's how long it took to reach spain.

[metadigital]

"It's not a police state for everybody else because these terror laws are designed specifically for Muslims and that's quite an open fact."

... And Brazilian illegal immigrants.

[Colrom]

It's a damned lie! Everyone knows we were persecuting the Irish long before the Muslims turned up.

 

Well.

 

There were the Crusades.

 

Very enthusiastic about them.

 

But the Irish were good for a whipping too for a while.

 

For how long was that?

 

800 years or so, wasn't it?

 

But you did come out against the slave trade in about 1800 or so.

 

Very progressive of you. :D

 

It's all very confusing.

 

Part of the white man's burden is keeping it straight I think.

Edited February 12, 2007 by Colrom

[Colrom]

In more seriousness, I am kinda confused about why some folks view this fellow as a reasonable suspect to be rounded up - given that he turned out not to be detained for anything.

 

Is there something about him that makes him more reasonable a suspect at the start than someone else?

 

I understand that he should be happy that he didn't get a bullet or two or three in his brain during the original round up - which might have happened if he had hiccuped at the wrong time - and he should stop making claims about a police state - which us white folks know is nonsense.

 

But that doesn't explain why he was arrested to start with.

 

He just seems a bit of a wuss and someone prone to exagerate the risk they are in. Not a terror suspect.

 

Exaggerating the risk is the norm these days, isn't it?

Edited February 12, 2007 by Colrom

[metadigital]

Are you asking us to guess what the evidence was that the police acted on?

[Colrom]

Sort of.

 

I'm wondering whether alot of the basis was just race and religion.

 

Or even color.

 

For sure that fellow they shot dead in teh subway would almost certainly still be alive if he had been white.

 

I don't know what they had in mind, but I don't assume they are acting rightly.

 

There are too many recent examples otherwise.

[Volourn]

"There are too many recent examples otherwise."

 

Ah. You ar eone of THOSE? I, too, cna play that game.

 

Going by recent examples, the majority of terrorists who try to blow things up in the Western world happen to be Arab/Muslims.

 

If we are going by 'recent examples' as 'evidence' then it is fair to assume the majority of terrorists will be Arab/Muslims.

 

Check, and mate.

 

 

You don't see blacks blowing themselves up hence why they arne't usually accused of doing so, and we all know how much the white man hates the black man, right?

 

R00fles!

 

 

P.S. In all seriously, I think every time the police falsely arrest someone they should have to pay a fine that is the equivelant, at the minimum, of lost pay x2 as punishment. Period. Rounding up everyone that may fit some broad focus group is beyond retarded.

[metadigital]

Sort of.

 

I'm wondering whether alot of the basis was just race and religion.

 

Or even color.

 

For sure that fellow they shot dead in teh subway would almost certainly still be alive if he had been white.

 

I don't know what they had in mind, but I don't assume they are acting rightly.

 

There are too many recent examples otherwise.

Wow, that's a lot of assumptions there.

 

For the record, the British Constabulary had a high-level political review a couple of decades ago (Thatcher's government) and the executive summary was that the force was institutionally racist.

 

Not a surprising conclusion, you might think, but it certainly was a bold assessment, and calculated to help the society to improve. And not too many other police forces (read: none) have ever even dared to have such an explosive commentary made about them, let alone published by the government.

 

I think you are over-egging the pudding by calling the police force institutionally racist now, though. That's just not supportable with the evidence.

[Colrom]

"There are too many recent examples otherwise."

 

Ah. You ar eone of THOSE? I, too, cna play that game.

 

Going by recent examples, the majority of terrorists who try to blow things up in the Western world happen to be Arab/Muslims.

 

If we are going by 'recent examples' as 'evidence' then it is fair to assume the majority of terrorists will be Arab/Muslims.

 

Check, and mate.

 

 

You don't see blacks blowing themselves up hence why they arne't usually accused of doing so, and we all know how much the white man hates the black man, right?

 

R00fles!

 

 

P.S. In all seriously, I think every time the police falsely arrest someone they should have to pay a fine that is the equivelant, at the minimum, of lost pay x2 as punishment. Period. Rounding up everyone that may fit some broad focus group is beyond retarded.

 

You have some good points - but there are complications.

 

For one thing crimes and threats are much more likely to be considered to be "terrorist" if the perpetrator is an arab/muslim.

 

For example, I have seen/heard several well known personalities including a medal of honor winner suggest nuclear attacks on Iran facilities or even turning Iran into glass. I have heard personalities suggest killing arab/muslim leaders in wide variety of ways. Etc. Etc. These are applauded.

 

Comments by arabs/muslims and antiwar folks which are not easily interpreted as violent threats have on many occasion given rise to agressive law enforcements action.

 

Whether the act is judged to be terrorist or supporting of terrorism depends on who is involved. Arabs/muslims are subject to a special interpretation of law - sort of the upside down of priviledge.

 

You could do an experiment on this with you and a muslim/arab friend but I fear that your friend might well wind up in big trouble or even dead.

 

You would probably be OK though - although that would change as soon as they found out you were associated in some way.

 

Probably not a good idea after all.

 

I used to think that the answer to mistaken murders by the police was execution of the policemen involved. Then we all would be sincere when we said "what a terrible tragedy". But my religious beliefs make me reject that option.

 

I am at the moment sick as a dog.

 

Can't do more.

 

Peace.

Edited February 14, 2007 by Colrom

[Walsingham]

Sorry to hear you are ill. I believe the chief constable said it best when he observed that it was perfectly normal to have people detained for questioning and then released without charge in large investigations. My point is that you must admit the man's behaviour subsequent to the arrest is comical for someone claiming to have been stupidly arrested. As for being a police state, if we were he would never have been released! Torture, false confession, and straight to prison/firing squad.

[metadigital]

A confession is only needed for a professional police state. :happy:

[Walsingham]

A confession is only needed for a professional police state. :happy:

 

Ah yes, I forgot. His comments that our interrogations were amateurish.