Print Story ACAB
Diary
By Herring (Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 02:13:21 PM EST) (all tags)
Late night meanderings.


I contribute towards Amnesty through a monthly bank payment thing. In return for this, they send me their magazine thing. The magazine has stories of all these human rights abuses occuring all around the world, but one story in there caught my eye as I was browsing it during an interlude in the seated position this morning. This is the gist of the story:

A journalist (and single mother) was arrested by a mob of police and carted off to the police station. She was threatened with life imprisonment, strip searched and interrogated. The authorities had extensive tape recordings of conversations between her and her ex-partner which they played to her.

It turned out that her ex-partner, who worked for the state police, had refused to cooperate in the underground surveillance of a lawyer interviewing their client. As a result, the ex-partner and the journalist were hounded over a period of 19 months.

Surely this must have been some country like Russia with some high-profile news organisation. Actually, it was Sally Murrer a part-time journalist on the Milton Keynes Citizen. The police case was thrown out of court BTW so something still works.

Incidentally, this particular investigation cost over £1m of taxpayer's money - which would pay for quite a few 5 a day counsellors. That's not to mention the police time spent on this that could've been spent on nicking burglars or something.

We don't live in a police state, but we do live in a state where the police appear to be able to get away with behaving as they please. A homeowner twats a burglar with a baseball bat ad gets arrested for assualt. No jury will ever convict but the police have their "sanctioned detection" and never mind the misery, stress and possible job-loss to the poor homeowner.

I'll hark back to nebbishgate here.I've met nebbish and he's reasonably fucking huge. Not wishing to speak on his behalf, but after being hassled by the coppers, is he more or less likely to pitch in on their side when some urban disorder kicks off? Or might he - or anyone who has been hassled for non-crimes - just walk on by on the other side?

I respect the idea of the police. These are people who have chosen, as their job, to put themselves in harm's way to protect the rest of us. But given daft policies with daft targets, and given an overinflated sense of their own power ... well it's all gone horribly wrong somewhere.

And yes, it's very, very wrong to hit a woman but I really would punch Jacqui Smith in the face.

I have a big rant about banks stored up as well.

< Wear Like You Care | Is that thing on? >
ACAB | 39 comments (39 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
(Comment Deleted) by dmg (2.00 / 0) #1 Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 02:55:52 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by dmg



All recent comments forgiven by Breaker (4.00 / 2) #2 Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 02:59:11 PM EST
And yes, it has gone wrong. 

The worrying thing for me is that I can't see a political end to it.  NuLabia are, are now "the establsihment", whereas they used to rail against it.

We are heading for a Tory government, shorn now of all principle and honour after NuLAbia shat all over our institutions.

And that's going to mean we're all fucked.

WELL DONE TONY YOU CUNT"


And for the record I don't mind being labeled a wanker, it was the "Tory" bit that rankled



We are completely fucked by dmg (2.00 / 0) #4 Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 03:04:35 PM EST
Because the dumbing down has worked.

There are people out there who believe the official story of 9/11 for crying out loud.

 
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
To be honest by Herring (4.00 / 2) #5 Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 03:27:46 PM EST
I was semi-trolling.

My definition of semi trolling ... well it's difficult. Many of those right-wing blogs do seem to take the attitude "no sensible person would need this - why are we paying for it?". Well, the thing is that many people aren't sensible. For years and years, we've had certain sections of the press shouting about social workers interferring. And then we get the Baby P case. And then it comes out that around about 3 children a week are killed by their parents or carers. And then there's hysteria about "Why didn't they intervene????!!!!?!?!".

Yes, I object to you blaming the wave of micro-managing authoritariansim all on the current government but I object to that because I see it as a trend starting in about 1979. During the miners' strike, Thatcher did indeed put through legislation that makes it technically illegal for more than 2 people to queue up for a kebab (assembling for a common purpose without police permission).

The police: They should work for us
Our elected representatives: They work for us

Incidentally, Mrs. H. today receive a leter from our MP in response to an e-mail she had sent because of a National Autistic Society campaign (SD, Aspergers). A personal letter with an actual signature. He is a Tory, but he works for us - even though we've never voted for him.

Yes, I am a socialist at heart in that I believe that we (who can) should help those that need help. It could be you one day. I also believe in the idea of democratic government - but like a real free-market, to work it depends upon the Informed Consumer. And that's something that both the capitalists and the politicians will do their utmost to prevent from happening.

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky

[ Parent ]
Clear, concise and spot-on by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #14 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:35:13 AM EST
Pls stand for government

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
I had forgotten writing that by Herring (2.00 / 0) #15 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:40:58 AM EST
Clearly I must only stand for government when drunk. It's been done before.

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]
I write really well when I'm pissed by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #17 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:36:50 AM EST
Well, relatively. If I fulfill my dream of writing for money I'll probably be dead within five years.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
There's a gap in the Gonzo market by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #37 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 11:01:37 AM EST
After HST topped himself.


[ Parent ]
Well then by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #34 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 07:09:37 AM EST
For years and years, we've had certain sections of the press shouting about social workers interferring. And then we get the Baby P case. And then it comes out that around about 3 children a week are killed by their parents or carers. And then there's hysteria about "Why didn't they intervene????!!!!?!?!".
Yeah.  As in why aren't they doing the fucking jobs we pay them for, to a level of competance that reduces the number of dead children?  As I recall in the Baby P case it wasn't funding or infrastructure it was sheer fucking incompetence.

Yes, I object to you blaming the wave of micro-managing authoritariansim all on the current government but I object to that because I see it as a trend starting in about 1979. During the miners' strike, Thatcher did indeed put through legislation that makes it technically illegal for more than 2 people to queue up for a kebab (assembling for a common purpose without police permission).
Ah yes.  The classic Labour Apologist line "it was Maggie".  Maybe you've been living in a different country to me but Labour have been in office over 11 years.  Eleven years to roll that back, eleven years to restore freedoms that the Tories denied us from 1979. 

And have they?  No, they've tightened the fucking screws again and again.  CCTV usage - exploded.  Speed cameras, RIPA, no demonstrating at the house of Parliament, how many new laws have Labour brought in?  And how many are fucking half arsed stupidly implemented like the CJA were?  Have they learned nothing?  Have we learned nothing? 

You're going to have to look long and hard at your history mate because the Thatcher boogiewoman is long gone from office and to blame our current woes on her goes way beyond party tribalism into the area of lunacy and delusion (you'll be in good company with GTLSB there at least). 

You're like a two year old caught with their hand in the biscuit jar claiming that a big boy ate all the biccies and ran away.  Labour have been the government for the last eleven years, Labour enacted these new laws of intrusion and limitation, Labour made the wording poor and ambiguous so that the intended use can creep. 

Labour did that, not Thatcher.  If you want to blame the Tories for being shit in opposition then go ahead but that's all you can pin on them.

For the record I am no fan of Thatcher either; on the one hand she sorted the economy and gave the EC a right kicking, on the other she was a right wing nutter that stole my milk and underwrote the CJA.  But continually bleating on about "it started in the 70's with Thatcher" sounds like the Labour line "it started in America" and that line is being examined critically by the media and public right now.

You accused me of wanting to cut back on ambulances and schools etc when I'd said nothing of the sort.  Somehow you've conflated me with some mental image of a far right enthusiast.  For the record, I like hospitals, fire brigades, schools and all the things I pay a fucking massive wedge of tax for, that I do not begrudge even though I am not currently using the services.  Because I'd be an utter fucking fool to deny the benefit of these social safety nets.  And yes I even support dole payments, and I'd fucking renationalise the rail network and energy companies tomorrow if I got a chance.

So I'm not out to deprive us from decent services for the benefit of all; it's the insidious encroachment of petty officials that can now hammer my door in without a warrant, for petty crimes real and alleged. 

It is innocent folk like nebbish being made to feel like criminals when they've done no wrong. 

It is the begrudging of money being funnelled by the government into quangoes (look at the accounts of ASH and Alcohol Concern for a start - for supposed "charidees" they both get fuck all comparitively speaking from voluntary donations and massive wedges from the Government) that act as echo chambers for policy, for all the fucking useless nonjobs that are granted rights to interrupt me in my legitimate business and private life.  And I look at the money we are burning in state sectors, and the interference that they are having to make to validate their existence and I don't fucking like it. 

So don't you fucking dare conflate that into some sort of selfishness; there'll be a recession coming that'll make the 80's look like a fucking sampling error.  At this point would you rather we invested borrowed money that we'll be paying off for at least the next twenty fucking years in a "street activity co-ordinator", "five a day counsellor", "smoking ban enforcer",  or a  nurse, a police officer and a teacher? 

I've no objection to spending tax revenue but spend it on tangible things that make peoples lives better, not intrusive nanny state operatives attempting leftist bollocks social engineering.

And the thing that makes me really, really fucking angry is that I am not expecting any better from either the Tories nor the Lib Dems.



 




[ Parent ]
Icke was right. by dmg (4.00 / 1) #3 Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 03:02:28 PM EST
It's all about doing things just slowly enough that people accept it.

However we should not lose sight of the fact that government is by consent. I think we may all need to bone up on our English Common Law before very long.

Ultimately they will do what we allow them to get away with. See here and here for the correct response to authoritarian government bullshit.

--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
People criticize the French by Herring (4.00 / 3) #9 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 12:52:03 AM EST
but they are quite good at cheese, wine and not putting up with shit.

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]
The problem isn't governmental, it's human by MohammedNiyalSayeed (2.00 / 0) #6 Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:14:03 PM EST

In an ideal world, policemen and women are competent, motivated, ethical people who've volunteered for a demanding job, and they don't go overboard and pursue revenge against citizens on their own for imagined grievances or false expectations of citizenship from the constituents they get paid to protect. We don't live in an ideal world.

Some of them are going to be awesome. Some of them are going to be pure "evil". Some of them are going to be brilliantly efficient, and some will be completely inept. All of them will make mistakes, and some of them will commit crimes, or at the very least, violations of the spirit of their duties. The good news is that this is not a recent development. The bad news is that it will always be like this. But it could always be much, much worse. And, in this case, at least nobody got shot.


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
Nobody there by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #7 Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:18:23 PM EST
But the police in the US are making sure we know that nothing has changed.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
'Oops' by MohammedNiyalSayeed (2.00 / 0) #8 Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:32:45 PM EST

"My bad. I'll be in Tahoe for a while if anyone needs me...


-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]
I have less respect for the police than I used to by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #10 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:12:04 AM EST
I should probably rephrase that - I used to have no respect for them, then started respecting them as I got older, now I've lost it again.

I don't think their abuse of powers is a recent development though. I've been re-reading David Peace's Red Riding Quartet in time for the televised version in March, and well it is fiction, but you forget just how fucking brutal and unaccountable the police used to be. This is being challenged by changes in the media and citizen journalism and the police are reacting against that.

Have they got worse? I don't think so. I have a friend who was hospitalised (and scared half to death) by the police at the 1993 anti-BNP march in Welling. There's the abuse of the SUS laws that led to the 1981 riots, the Miners Strike, the Battle of the Beanfield. And anyone who blames Labour seems to forget the biggest civil liberties crackdown of the last 20 years was the Criminal Justice Act.

I suppose the disappointing thing is that in the wake of the McPherson Report there was a belief that the police were changing, and it turned out that wasn't the case.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

No, I don't think it's particularly new by Herring (4.00 / 1) #12 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:28:55 AM EST
but giving them lots of arbitrary powers - as has been done recently - cannot be a good thing. Look at the things you've done this week and think how many times they could've nicked you if they wanted to.

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]
Good point /nt by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #13 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:34:23 AM EST

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
Bzzzzt! by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #39 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 12:09:34 PM EST
And anyone who blames Labour seems to forget the biggest civil liberties crackdown of the last 20 years was the Criminal Justice Act.

Actually I don't seem to recall any high profile trials involving the CJA (not that I'm defending that ham fisted piece of evil legislation).  I think even the police are loathe to use it.

But in any case, here's a list of what Labour have done for your liberties quickly culled from a Google search:
Oh yeah and the extreme porn law went live this week, still unencumbered by any real definition of "extreme" or "porn".



[ Parent ]
Oh and by nebbish (4.00 / 2) #11 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 02:18:25 AM EST
This video made my blood boil. It's the lack of an apology.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

No video at work by Herring (4.00 / 1) #16 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:14:51 AM EST
View later.

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]
And YET ANOTHER THING by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #18 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 03:39:11 AM EST
I'm in Amnesty as well, the magazine tends to go in the bin because reading it makes me feel so guilty about not doing any letter writing etc.

Pretty sure that Milton Keynes case was in Private Eye a while back.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

Yes it was by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #19 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 04:55:36 AM EST
Also mentioned in the Guardian and the Register. Shocking case.

[ Parent ]
This is how I feel about by garlic (2.00 / 0) #20 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:07:32 AM EST
the letters I get from MSF and Heifer.


[ Parent ]
The caveman is driving by Merekat (4.00 / 2) #21 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:17:51 AM EST
Or at least that is the theory put forward in my current reading. One suggestion this book makes and which I find quite appealing is that these corporate types and police etc. are not actually sitting around plotting ways to remove rights and fuck over the little man. They actually rationalise/believe they are doing good and necessary things. I find this position appealing as it explains quite how hard it is to change their minds.


Indeed by Herring (2.00 / 0) #23 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:27:12 AM EST
All these people believe they are doing right - Nixon, Blagojavich (sp?), Hitler (incidentally, have you seen the Mitchell & Webb Nazi soldier sketch?), Brian Cant.

Is it a good book? I always need more books.

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky

[ Parent ]
It is entertaining enough by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #24 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:41:08 AM EST
Check your local library.


[ Parent ]
very, very wrong to hit a woman? by Dr H0ffm4n (2.00 / 0) #22 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:25:00 AM EST
More or less wrong than to hit a man?

Why?

Equity by Phage (2.00 / 0) #25 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 05:51:00 AM EST
Not a level playing field. Therefore no 'natural justice'.

[ Parent ]
Women' faces damage more easily than men's? by Dr H0ffm4n (2.00 / 0) #27 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:14:14 AM EST
Or women can take less pain?
Or just that men can hit harder?

[ Parent ]
Are you serious ? by Phage (2.00 / 0) #28 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:23:54 AM EST
Apart from a brow ridge, testosterone also gives greater size/mass, a longer reach, more powerful musculature, greater stamina and a higher concentration of sweat glands per cm2. (apparently)

Sure there are weedy blokes and tough women, but overall, in an otherwise equal fight, they'll lose. Badly.

[ Parent ]
So the argument is purely from physical advantage? by Dr H0ffm4n (4.00 / 1) #29 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:34:33 AM EST
I don't go around punching women btw. But then I don't go around punching men.

But I don't hold to the argument that if I'm attacked by a drunken woman then I'm not allowed to use necessary force to stop her quickly. To caricature women as some sort of inviolable porcelain creatures is patronising and not helpful when women then want to be considered equitably on merit for other physical stuff. I don't think that hitting a woman is wronger than hitting a man.

[ Parent ]
Understand by Phage (4.00 / 1) #31 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:56:54 AM EST
The key is your word 'necessary'. As in the legal meaning of an appropriate level of response.

Nothing to do with porcelain.

[ Parent ]
SMSAB used to attack me when she was pissed by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #38 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 11:12:42 AM EST
And I would use necessary force to stop her from doing so.  Whilst it'd probably have been easier to just deck her, I would trap her arms to her body and encircle her legs.  So, necessary force.

It's not a man / woman thing, it's more a physical / size thing.  Are you physically stronger and faster?



[ Parent ]
Don't forget by Herring (4.00 / 1) #30 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:49:47 AM EST
Superior navigation skills, ability to remember who is who 15 minutes into the film and the ability to piss standing up.

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]
Not to sure about the last by Phage (2.00 / 0) #32 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:58:03 AM EST
But it is a lot easier to write your name in the snow.

[ Parent ]
Depends what your name is by Herring (4.00 / 2) #33 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 07:01:44 AM EST
and what character set is required.

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]
A man is more likely to hit back by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #35 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 07:19:34 AM EST
And be closer to your physical strength.  Doubtless there's exceptions but as a general rule men are stronger than women.


[ Parent ]
ABACAB by debacle (2.00 / 0) #26 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 06:04:41 AM EST
Also, WIPO: way too long ago for us to string up anyone worth being blamed.

IF YOU HAVE TWO FIRLES THOROWNF MONEY ART SUOCIDE GIRLS STRIPPER HPW CAN YPUS :OSE?!?!?!?(elcevisides).

WIPO- 1997 by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #36 Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 07:20:30 AM EST
Ah great days.


ACAB | 39 comments (39 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback