As if we didn't already know.
By Idempotent (Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 11:23:22 PM EST) (all tags)

Teh Terrorists have won.

What can you say?

What can you do?

It's not as if this kind of thing just "happens to dirty foreigners other people". I suppose at least the bloke didn't get shot, but the cynic in me suspects the police have learnt that shooting innocent people tends to result in a bit of bad press so are under instructions not to shoot them unless it looks justified.

I despair.

Why do we vote for people who all this to happen?

Why isn't there any party with a chance of actually getting in who'll represent the interests of the majority and behave rationally?

When will we show the terrorists that they can't win by showing how a free society deals with them - by protecting what it's citizens have fought for in the past, and hunting criminals in a just and transparent manner?

Scary and Sad by Phage (2.00 / 0) #1 Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 11:30:48 PM EST
I didn't know they could take DNA without your permission or evidence.

On arrest. by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #2 Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 11:37:15 PM EST
If they want your DNA, all they have to do is arrest you for anything. Once they've got it, they keep it. Even if they don't charge you, you're found not guilty.

The top policeman bloke is on record as saying he wants to get everyone's DNA on his database. You know, just in case one of us turns out to be a thought criminal.

England in 2005. It's doubleplusgood.

[ Parent ]
I'd like by Phage (2.00 / 0) #3 Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 11:56:25 PM EST
To get his DNA spread on some asphalt.

[ Parent ]
Isn't toast more traditional? by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #15 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:32:59 AM EST
Who's going to stop idiotic morons like him?

Some method of removing any public officer would be handy. Get a petition of more than 5% of affected citizens, and then some sort of process starts...

[ Parent ]
Been done by Phage (2.00 / 0) #17 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:38:28 AM EST

Aother important part of Athenian democracy in the fifth century was something called ostracism. Once every year, the assembly would be asked if they wanted to hold an ostracism. If they said yes, then, two months later, the assembly met in the agora. Everybody who wanted to could scratch the name of somebody they wanted to get rid of on to a sherd of pottery and deposit it. If there was a total of 6,000 pieces of pottery, then whoever had the most votes had to leave the country for ten years within ten days.

[ Parent ]
Don't feel it's just the UK by creo (4.00 / 1) #5 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:05:19 AM EST
It's happening everywhere. The state government here is introducing legislation that cuts the judiciary out granting the need for a warrant for search and seizure. Now it just needs a nod from the police minister and the dogs are off the leash. A neat cutting out of the judicail reviews of the activities of the executive. They should just open an internal security division, buy some black Mercs and leather coats and be done with the pretense.

It's the got beyond the thin edge and is right at the chunky part of the wedge.

The problem is, no one cares - or worse, actively thinks it's a good idea. Everyone says "I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear", and follows that up with "You have to trust the police" and then "Well they must have had something on him." Having being stiched up myself when I was a young bloke by a lying cop, I have NO trust for the police, unless they earn it. Why (in this country at least) have we had about 3 Royal commissions into the police force in the last 20 years?

As the linked story shows, we all have something to fear. The day that cops can search and seize without reference to a judge is the beginning of the end of personal rights. Even if the granting judge was crooked, there was still a paper trail - now if a cops had a bad day, you can disappear for 2 weeks.

We have already started evicting peaceful protesters under anti terror laws in Australia. Wait until they start using anti terror laws on people using industrial action, anti globalist policies and so on. Protest against trees being cut down - disappear for 2 weeks.

Welcome to the modern liberal democracy.

"I shall do what I believe to be right and honourable" - Guderian

[ Parent ]
The two weeks they can hold by jump the ladder (4.00 / 1) #10 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:18:20 AM EST
Without charging anyone they want to increase to three months, scary. Notr as bad as Gitmo but getting towards that.

[ Parent ]
And useless for stopping terrorists anyway. by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #14 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:31:29 AM EST
"Oh look, one of our members has vanished for up to three months. I wonder if the police are on to us?"

Yeah, it might stop one attack, but provides useful information to the terrorist cells about how to plan the next one.

The measure would be quite useful for stopping dissent, and really pissing off protesters. But of course, it wouldn't be used for that.

[ Parent ]
Sure it's useful by The Fool (2.00 / 0) #69 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 09:22:47 AM EST
It can take up to three months to ship people to a friendly country where the police are used to torturing suspects.

[ Parent ]
I thought one of the objectives in Iraq by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #70 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 09:32:12 AM EST
was the transfer of such knowledge to our local police force?

[ Parent ]
Heh by Phage (4.00 / 1) #16 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:35:41 AM EST
That wasn't a Parramatta cop was it ? I had a great time with them. My favourite quote was when I had one officer as a witness to a traffic accident. When they found out that the person who caused the accident was a civilian employee of the Police I received a phone call that told me "I shouldn't be too sure what that officer would say should I choose to pursue the matter."

[ Parent ]
be careful who you vote for by martingale (4.00 / 1) #30 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:55:17 AM EST
It's not like nobody saw it coming.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
Yeah. by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #34 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:28:45 AM EST
Where is "none of the above" on the ballot paper?

[ Parent ]
that's democracy for you by martingale (2.00 / 0) #42 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:37:39 AM EST
Even when you vote against the majority, you're still responsible for the outcome. I think Churchill said something memorable about democracy once.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
Not the issue I'm worried about. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #43 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:44:52 AM EST
The parties seem to be paid for and funded by "industry", and therefore work to make things nice for "industry".

Traditionally Labour was paid for and funded by Unions, and therefore worked to make things nice for Union leaders.

While neither is particularly wonderful, at least the balance sort of prevented the really stupid stuff happening. But now New Labour is funded by industry... we just have a choice between politicians instead of policies.

And we're in the weird situation where the House of Lords is the best defender of democracy!

[ Parent ]
sounds like there is room for another party! by martingale (2.00 / 0) #49 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:08:45 AM EST
Or maybe a job for the Liberal Democrats, if they can claw their way to the top?
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
s/another/other/ by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #54 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:43:58 AM EST
They will always be represented as the "other party" who, while worthy and everything, has no chance of getting in and doing anything.

I don't mean to be pessimistic here. I really want an action plan to sort this all out.

[ Parent ]
well I think I could make an argument by dr k (2.00 / 0) #4 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:05:03 AM EST
that "computer and telecoms enthusiasts" are in fact making the world a shitty place. But it is a nuanced argument that would satisfy neither the police nor the "liberties" crowd.

:| :| :| :| :|

I read about it this morning by jump the ladder (4.00 / 1) #6 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:10:18 AM EST
It's not so much the being arrested bit, it's the fact they keep the DNA, notes and everything which is disturbing.

And his property. by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #11 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:21:57 AM EST
If that happened to me and I lost my computers, that's my livelihood gone.

[ Parent ]
Yeah by jump the ladder (4.00 / 1) #12 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:27:23 AM EST
Computers and mobile phones are very important to people's lives and for some people are not optional extras like the police seem to make out.

[ Parent ]
why is that surprising? by martingale (2.00 / 0) #31 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:58:42 AM EST
The police have had this kind of power for ages. They could take your car if they had a reason, or I'm sure your debit/credit cards. Computers are not special in this respect.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
But they don't have a reason. by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #35 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:29:14 AM EST
They said he's innocent.

[ Parent ]
no, they arrested him by martingale (4.00 / 1) #39 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:34:47 AM EST
Once he's no longer arrested, and if his possessions aren't relevant to some other ongoing investigation, he can expect to get them back in due course, as the practicalities of bureaucracy demand.

Like it says in the article, one of the officers has to sign some papers to close off the incident, once that is done he'll be able to collect his things during work hours I'm sure.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

[ Parent ]
in due course by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #41 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:36:54 AM EST
Now there's the kicker.

Again, I am extremely worried that going out in public in a coat could end up with my computers and backups in the hands of the police, with no real idea when I'd get them back and no recourse to force them to do so.

Wouldn't matter for many, but they are essential to earning a living for me.

[ Parent ]
but you do get them back by martingale (2.00 / 0) #45 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:01:41 AM EST
It's just that it takes time, which is no fault of the law.

I guess what I'm saying is that there's nothing concrete to complain about, you can't legislate the practicalities of bureaucracy. So even if the law says one thing, the practicalities can mean a different thing, and the practicalities always win, as they are kind of orthogonal.

My view is that it's best if laws are more limited in the first place.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

[ Parent ]
The law is based around the what a by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #46 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:07:00 AM EST
"reasonable man" would find acceptable.

If I got arrested, then released without charge but the tools of my trade got effectively confiscated, would you find it reasonable for this to destroy my "business"? (I'm self-employed.)

If so, why?

[ Parent ]
it's acceptable by martingale (2.00 / 0) #51 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:18:05 AM EST
It's acceptable because it's practical. What can you do differently? What law can you invoke that can give you back your tools as soon as some officer verbally assures you that you're free?

The official issue is that there are some forms to sign, and your equipment to retrieve from a warehouse or wherever it is. These aren't points of law. There is no obvious dragging of feet, the guy who's responsible for signing the form is off on some other job. Should the law tell him to drop what he's doing and fill out a form? What if you're released late in the day and you can't get back your tools the next morning at the earliest? How can the law make practical things happen?

So the current situation is acceptable to all people, because there is no alternative. If there was, what would it be?

Maybe I'd like to fly, but I accept that I can walk and run, but not fly. Even if I wrote a law that said I wasn't forbidden to fly, and should take all reasonable steps to ensure that I flew once a day.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

[ Parent ]
Acceptable? by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #55 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:45:04 AM EST
Is it acceptable that the penalty for being innocent is to lose your job?

[ Parent ]
Business opportunity? by Gully Foyle (2.00 / 0) #61 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:03:31 AM EST
Insurance against being wrongfully arrested might be pretty lucrative if this starts happening more regularly. I can imagine the adverts on Sky already...

[ Parent ]
Interesting idea... by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #63 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:13:14 AM EST
I shall keen on not watching Sky.

[ Parent ]
Interesting by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #7 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:10:46 AM EST
There are some pictures on his website: wonder if he's the guy with the big black beard?

Sounds like it was mostly by the book, but suspect it was his appearance rather than behaviour that led to him being searched.

What would be nice to know is if the security alert was caused by his appearance/behaviour, or if there was a separate alert so they arrested a guy they thought suspicious.

Perhaps he has the white beard. by spcmanspiff (2.00 / 0) #8 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:14:16 AM EST
OMG, they arrested Santa Claus!

[ Parent ]
Oh noes! by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #9 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:17:53 AM EST
He was born in 1965 according to his CV though, so the other guy seems more likely.

[ Parent ]
By the book? The book is wrong. by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #13 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:28:54 AM EST
So what if he had a big black beard? Show me the law which says I must conform in appearance to social norms.

More seriously, there are two things you need to do to combat terrorists.

1. Intelligence. Find out about it before it happens.
2. Response. Clean up after an attack, and then hunt down the attackers and collect enough evidence for a court of law to convict them.
Note that I didn't mention any "security measures", whether physical (eg bomb or metal detectors) or behavioural (picking up suspicious looking men).

Security measures are a waste of money. Name one security measure which cannot be trivially gotten around. For example, picking up men with big black beards can be made useless by simply shaving.

Note for anyone taking up the challenge: Consider a generic terrorist who wants to kill civilians and cause massive disruption, along with a causing a bit of fear. You have to find a security measure which will prevent them achieving this objective.

As defenders, you have to protect against all possible attacks. As attackers, you have to find one unprotected line of attack.

Anything which might work will remove so much liberty that it would be unworkable. For example, locking everyone in their homes would do the trick, but I can't see that happening.

[ Parent ]
What specific bits of the book/law are wrong? by R Mutt (4.00 / 1) #18 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:44:59 AM EST
Several things happened here.

A. A bearded man in a jacket and rucksack was stopped and searched on the grounds of suspicious behaviour.

B. On discovery that his bag was full of wires and he was carrying electronic components, he was arrested and his home was searched.

C. His DNA and fingerprints were kept on file though he had not been convicted of any crime.

All three are legal. I would say A and B are justified. C is more debatable.

[ Parent ]
The bit where it's expected to solve something. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #19 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:50:58 AM EST
As I explained, going out and looking for terrorists you have not previously encountered is pointless. Whether you do it by looking out for bin Laden look-a-likes, or use technology to spot Bad Things, it's just not going to work.

Spend the money on intelligence work and response, and it'll be far more effective. Intelligence identifies the people to keep an eye on, and response reduces the effect of the attack. And hopefully teaches terrorists that they've got about a month before being caught, put on trial, and convicted in an open court on overwhelming evidence. (blah, blah, suicide bombers: if you're thinking of objecting on those grounds, the bombers are merely weapons used by the people controlling them.)

So, the book is wrong, because it doesn't achieve anything other massively disrupting innocent people's lives.

[ I acknowledge that we do not know whether or not they were already tracking him as a potential terrorist. However, it seems unlikely. ]

[ Parent ]
When you say 'spend the money on intelligence work by MohammedNiyalSayeed (2.00 / 0) #60 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:55:13 AM EST

and response', what, precisely, does that mean? Everyone agrees in the abstract that "better intelligence" is a good thing in almost any situation. What I'm asking is, specifically, do you fundamentally misunderstand the HUMINT problem of simply not having enough people? HUMINT ops are paid better than SIGINT ops, yet the danger to life and limb keeps more people from joining the ranks.

Mind you, I'm not saying "the book" isn't "wrong" here, simply that you're suggesting a rather simplistic solution of throwing money at a problem, when there really aren't people at the end of the arc to catch that cash. It smacks of consultancy tainting, rather than an in-depth knowledge of how "intelligence gathering" actually works. Bruce Schneier has been suffering from this lately, as well, so you're in good company, at least.

-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]
OK, I'll revise my suggestion. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #66 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:17:46 AM EST
Stop spending money on useless security measures. Spend it on something useful instead, like hospitals and schools.

At the same time, keep on spending the money on intelligence and response, exactly as we are now.

If they did that, we'd be as safe as we were before, and yet all better off through decent health care and educated young adults entering the workforce. Quite apart from random invasions of civil liberties not happening.

[ Parent ]
B Justified ? by Phage (4.00 / 1) #20 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 12:57:55 AM EST
There was nothing suspicious in his bag. The bomb squad joked with him on the way out. We all carry electronic equipment of one sort or another, if he was cleared by the 'experts' of the bomb squad, the arrest and search, whilst legal, is unjustified.

Don't get me started on C. Debatable, sheesh....

[ Parent ]
Amongst the items he was carrying by R Mutt (4.00 / 1) #21 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:10:28 AM EST
"...the active part of an old work pass where one can see the induction loop and one integrated circuit."

Now maybe the average HuSi user could glance at a disconnected electronic component and immediately say "oh, that's just a harmless induction loop and integrated circuit, doubtless part of an old work pass he happened to be carrying around."

But I don't think it's that unreasonable for the average policeman to think it wants further investigation, given he's already been identified as acting suspiciously.

[ Parent ]
Hmmmm by Phage (4.00 / 1) #22 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:14:59 AM EST
Not average policemen - bomb squad.
Do you think his behaviour counts as acting suspiciously ?

My point stands. Once the contents of his bag were shown to be 'innocent' he should have been released immediately.

[ Parent ]
Ah yes, by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #23 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:22:47 AM EST
but if you do that then the police start to look fallible. You can't have that. These are terrorists we're dealing with, and the police can't make mistakes.

I'm sure they could get him on "wasting police time" at the very least. It sounds like he intended to look like a terrorist just to divert attention from something else happening. So actually, perhaps he could be done as a terrorists because he gave terrorists the opportunity to do Bad Things while the police were otherwise engaged with him?

[ Parent ]
The contents of his bag and pockets by R Mutt (3.00 / 1) #24 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:27:49 AM EST
...were never shown to be "innocent": he was carrying wires and bits of electronics for no practical purpose. Average people don't just carry induction loops and integrated circuits around for the heck of it. So yes, I would say to the searching policeman that would be suspicious, given that his behaviour has already been flagged.

[ Parent ]
Ahem by Phage (4.00 / 1) #25 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:31:46 AM EST
Average people don't just carry induction loops and integrated circuits around for the heck of it.
Sweeping generalisation. Nuff said.

..his behaviour has already been flagged.
Do you think his behaviour was suspicious ? How about his beard ?

[ Parent ]
His behaviour by R Mutt (3.50 / 2) #27 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:39:03 AM EST
His account differs from the police account, so I can't really judge.

Given that he's a journalist though, I suspect he deliberately behaved in such a way as to arouse suspicion so that he could get a story out of it.

I've gotten stared at and had people move away from me on the Tube after the 7/7 attacks, xth has experienced the same thing; and we don't even have full black beards. There's no way that he's walking around the Tube in raincoat, rucksack with pockets full of random electronics and not thinking about it.

[ Parent ]
Agreed by Phage (2.00 / 0) #28 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:43:32 AM EST
I did wonder how he managed to break a security pass.

[ Parent ]
decision theory 101 by martingale (4.00 / 1) #36 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:29:17 AM EST
On one side we have his account, on the other side we have the police account. Without further prior information, we might expect the two to cance each other out. However, we do have prior information.

We know that the British police lately has a culture of defensiveness that has recently come to the foreground, and of course police organizations all over the world exhibit what we might call "esprit de corps", ie an identification of the individual's goals with his organization's goals. Be that as it may, there is ample reason to believe that the police account needs to be weighted slightly below a neutral weight, at best.

On the other hand, we have his account, for which he has no history of being untruthful, nor any relevant history against arbitrary arrest. It follows that his weight is at worst neutral, unless you can fish out some dirt on him.

Comparing the two, we see that, qualitatively speaking, his account is clearly more believable than the police account in this case, unless you can fish out some prior information to change the scales. It is therefore unreasonable to suggest that the two accounts are equally persuasive.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

[ Parent ]
Further reading by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #40 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:35:27 AM EST
http://www.perfect.co.uk/2005/09/prepare-to-be-judged

This is sounding like one big law enforcement party!

[ Parent ]
not just in the UK unfortunately by martingale (2.00 / 0) #44 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:53:02 AM EST
And progress was just being made.

Only in 2000 did France actually halve the amount of time a person could be detained for no reason at all, no questions asked, to get more in line with European laws. With those stupid terrorist laws at the European level, we'll soon be able to expect a harmony of a different kind.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

[ Parent ]
"harmony" by Idempotent (4.00 / 2) #47 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:07:53 AM EST
You mean the sort where all the dissidents are in jail, and everyone outside speaks from the same hymn sheet?

As I said before, it sounds doubleplusgood to me!

[ Parent ]
Actually I agree with your first point by Phage (4.00 / 1) #26 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:33:40 AM EST
It was most likely about his appearance, his accent and his choice of luggage.
I am just disquieted by it.

[ Parent ]
So now not being "normal" is by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #38 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:31:46 AM EST
cause for having your life disrupted by the police?

You're not even slightly worried about that? Even putting aside for the moment the fact that this kind of behaviour from the police doesn't actually do any good.

[ Parent ]
Oh, come off it by R Mutt (4.00 / 1) #50 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:14:09 AM EST
Minor trade journalist gets a chance for a front page story in a national newspaper. He's probably hovered, leered and fingered his pockets in front of every cop in London for the last three weeks.

[ Parent ]
Sigged ! Brilliant. by Phage (2.00 / 0) #52 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:34:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Right then. by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #56 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:46:25 AM EST
So it's OK, because he provoked them?

That behaviour sounds remarkably similar to that of some people with mental health problems. Is being ill illegal too?

[ Parent ]
If someone's really determined to get arrested by R Mutt (4.00 / 2) #58 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:51:38 AM EST
There's very little civil liberties legislation can do.

[ Parent ]
Is this relevant? by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #64 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:14:59 AM EST
So what if he was "provoking" them. And you don't know if he was or not.

The facts still stand that not following social norms on public transport can result in your ability to learn a living being taken away from you.

And that really scares me.

[ Parent ]
Sounds good to me by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #73 Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 03:45:30 AM EST
Fewer competitors for those of us who travel to work using the method that the Invisible Sky Giant intended.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]
Interesting approach to trolling, this... by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #74 Fri Oct 14, 2005 at 04:17:08 AM EST
... "historical commenting" thing.

Speaking of ISG intentions, this whole traveling to work is quite a recent innovation. You're asking for a smiting, you know.

[ Parent ]
you didn't rtfa by martingale (2.00 / 2) #32 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:13:56 AM EST
The reason he was arrested wasn't the wire in his bag, or anything in his bag actually, but the fact that there had been an armed man hoax the previous year at his place of employment. That was the suspicious thing for which he was arrested, being presumably too much of a coincidence.

It says so explicitly in the writeup.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

[ Parent ]
Fuck off, dipshit by R Mutt (1.00 / 1) #33 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:25:50 AM EST
I read the article thoroughly, and chose to focus on the bits I thought were important.

[ Parent ]
indeed, precisely what I'm lamenting [n/t] by martingale (2.00 / 2) #37 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:30:03 AM EST

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
what the hell is this? by martingale (4.00 / 1) #29 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 01:51:35 AM EST
Since when do French people get treated like the Welsh? It seems to me that this is going a bit far now. There may be payback, and believe me, Tony Blair doesn't want to be stuck in the middle of a pincer movement between Cardiff and Calais. I'm just sayin'
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
Welsh? by Gully Foyle (2.00 / 0) #62 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:07:52 AM EST
Sounds more like they treated him like he was Irish.

[ Parent ]
Well, he can fuck off back to France then by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #48 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:08:19 AM EST
Can't he?

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
Would sir by Phage (2.00 / 0) #53 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:39:00 AM EST
Care for a big wooden spoon for superior agitation of that pot ?

[ Parent ]
You forgot... by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #57 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:47:09 AM EST
"and he can take all his crappy stuff back with him too."

Oh. He can't. The police have it all.

[ Parent ]
No, he can't have that back by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #59 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:09:29 AM EST
If he doesn't like living in a first world country with access to that sort of dangerous technology, he can go back to burning sheep to keep warm in French ditches with his chums.

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]
Did that comment make sense? /nt by Idempotent (4.00 / 1) #65 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:15:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
France by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #67 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:32:32 AM EST
France!

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.
[ Parent ]
I think someone is jealous. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #68 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 06:37:32 AM EST
And loves to show off their use of HTML tags.

Your sig appears to have a cheese grater sticking out of the helmet. Is this some fearsome Scottish weapon to grate people to death?

[ Parent ]
He got off easy by dn (2.00 / 0) #71 Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 10:12:20 PM EST
Real cops would have shot him in the back of the head six times, what with him wearing dangerously warm clothing like that.

I ♥
TOXIC
WASTE

These are post-modern cops. by Idempotent (2.00 / 0) #72 Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 12:04:24 AM EST
Aware that you have to be media-friendly. They have learned that shooting people is not very media-friendly right now.

[ Parent ]