Police State?

[neonleon]

We should be shocked when the police lie - Telegraph

interesting article about growing cynicism towards the police from the general public.

With all the new laws passed by Labour, the growing misuse of the terrorism act ( a mate of mine was arrested, slapped about, put in a paper suit for the night by the liverpool police for raising his voice at railway staff because his train home had been replaced by a bus, that he had missed due to waiting on the platform where the train was meant to be. - what was he arrested under? the terrorism act!), CCTV conveniently disappearing in cases where the police have acted suspiciously etc.

Two things,First, I think the change that took place in the sixties when we introduced an 'us and them' USA style police force of squad cars and sirens and distanced policing - instead of the community policing that worked within the public and was protected and informed by the public - has made the police force arrogant, corrupt, prone to abuses of power (the more so as police never seen to be punished for corruption or abuses of power, or indeed any wrongdoing) and aloof. The public are seemingly looked at as potential criminals, scum of the earth, playthings to be pushed around.

When did they lose their accountability to the general public?


Secondly, this government has done wonders to turn the average citizen into a criminal by passing any number of laws that are prone to be used indiscriminately to target political opponents, people who are prone to obstruct government policy etc. or anyone they feel needs to be imprisoned at their liberty.

Not just terrorists, but opposition MPs, environmental activists, protesters etc.

Some of these civil liberties that we have lost were enshrined in the [Poor language removed] magna carta, that is how fundamental they are to the british public - and some of our forefathers no doubt paid in blood for these rights.

From the top down, the Government is using the police as an apparatus of power.

Although tory voters should note that the conservatives have a long history of doing the same.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

All governments do the same to lesser or greater degree

 

[neonleon]

driving towards a police state on a road of apathy?

whether all governments do it or not, we should not let it happen.

whilst we still are allowed a voice (well sometimes, you can't demonstrate near parliament anymore except by special agreement)

 

[Seamus Colemole]

driving towards a police state on a road of apathy?

whether all governments do it or not, we should not let it happen.

whilst we still are allowed a voice (well sometimes, you can't demonstrate near parliament anymore except by special agreement)

Do you see us eventually becoming a dictatorship then where the individual has very very few freedoms?

 

[neonleon]

well the police are already arresting people who are politically inconvenient and reducing the right to assemble and protest.

so in that sense freedoms have already been circumscribed.

look at the way the statistic are being manipulated to suit government policy. Need to justify a massive police presence/operation against some environmental protesters and to discredit the protesters?

Simply show stats that 70 officers were injured in the event.

the injuries? Just a load of police trying to get the next day of work sick.

a bee sting, a back ache, a sprained ankle, the flu.

NOT ONE INJURED IN VIOLENT CONFRONTATION WITH THE PROTESTERS.

Hark, Blair's ministry of truth is addressing us once more!

(by which I mean eric as well as tony)

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I don't really get why people think they're free at the moment. Democracy is a sham. As mentioned in a thread previously, tax accounts for 39% of GDP. So 39p out of every pound generated in this country is taken by the state under rule of law. We have no choice over giving it up or how its spent.

When was democracy ever about freedom?

 

[CanadaToffee]

Having grown up in a police state (South Africa in the Apartheid era), and having spent time in the UK - not even close.

 

[toffeestillidie]

I don't really get why people think they're free at the moment. Democracy is a sham. As mentioned in a thread previously, tax accounts for 39% of GDP. So 39p out of every pound generated in this country is taken by the state under rule of law. We have no choice over giving it up or how its spent.

When was democracy ever about freedom?

i don't think high taxes is a mark of a lacking freedom necessarily, just a necessary sacrifice to maintain society and prevent oneself from returning to a volatile state of nature.

people, especially the wealthy who contribute most of those tax dollars, always have mobility as an option. the market's that have made them rich are the products of a society maintained by that taxation, if they don't like it, they could always forfeit all their wealth and go live with the african bushmen.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

driving towards a police state on a road of apathy?

whether all governments do it or not, we should not let it happen.

whilst we still are allowed a voice (well sometimes, you can't demonstrate near parliament anymore except by special agreement)

It wasn't a statement of resignation mate, rather an observation. I was on a picket line in the early eighties and witnessed a baton charge by the police a few yards away. That was thatcher's Britain just after she started her attack on the unions. I always found it ironic when the tory press/cronies referred to Arthur Scargill as Hitler. Conveniently forgetting to mention that one of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was smash the unions.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

well the police are already arresting people who are politically inconvenient and reducing the right to assemble and protest.

so in that sense freedoms have already been circumscribed.

look at the way the statistic are being manipulated to suit government policy. Need to justify a massive police presence/operation against some environmental protesters and to discredit the protesters?

Simply show stats that 70 officers were injured in the event.

the injuries? Just a load of police trying to get the next day of work sick.

a bee sting, a back ache, a sprained ankle, the flu.

NOT ONE INJURED IN VIOLENT CONFRONTATION WITH THE PROTESTERS.

Hark, Blair's ministry of truth is addressing us once more!

(by which I mean eric as well as tony)

A lot of people don't see the irony of that.

 

[atrottel]

It wasn't a statement of resignation mate, rather an observation. I was on a picket line in the early eighties and witnessed a baton charge by the police a few yards away. That was thatcher's Britain just after she started her attack on the unions.

So was I, mate, and that's where I agree with you. It's always been there in various countries and at various times, the interesting thing is that many people who found it convenient to hide from the truth are now starting to question it.

There's a reason why a series of plays by one of Britain's foremost producers and an award-winning director about the General Strike and the post-WW1 period has only ever had one repeat on the national TV channel for which it was commissioned and never been released on DVD, despite me remembering it vividly over 30 years later.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

i don't think high taxes is a mark of a lacking freedom necessarily, just a necessary sacrifice to maintain society and prevent oneself from returning to a volatile state of nature.

people, especially the wealthy who contribute most of those tax dollars, always have mobility as an option. the market's that have made them rich are the products of a society maintained by that taxation, if they don't like it, they could always forfeit all their wealth and go live with the african bushmen.

So how much of what goes out in taxes is required to 'maintain society'? I'd be quite happy to pay for a state police and legal system. Likewise an armed forces. It is the states job to protect its citizens.

That's it. It's not the states job to educate, provide healthcare or charity. All of those things can be done much better by a free market that offers real choice and freedom over the kind of service you want to get for your money.

That's freedom, the ability to choose how to spend your money how you wish, on what you wish. It's also the nearest thing to democracy because it's a real meritocracy that provides services based on exactly how people 'vote', or spend, rather than the current majority = monopoly, minority = tough luck system.

 

[neonleon]

healthcare, charity, education, crime, defence are not separate, disparate areas of societal concern.

they are part of an organic system of our culture and our nation - legislation, change, funding and fresh ideas in one sphere impinge on the others.

to hope that taxes can be paid selectively towards certain things you prefer and not bother with, education for example - leaving it to people to presumably "buy" their education - not withstanding a significant majority could not afford it - fails to recognise how this gung-ho, self centred, selfish and introspective perspective would effect healthcare and crime - it is quite possible that a well educated society commits less crime, has the potential to benefit the local economy, and has a greater understanding of preventative health care; thus alleviating some of the fiscal stresses on health and law and order.

Conversely, it is similarly probable that a significant part of a population that has had little to no education, will resort to criminality, and be prone to premature health issues.

What is it about taxes that makes people so myopic?

sorry bruce, but the free market doesn't have all the answers, regardless of what Ayn Rand wrote, Reagan did or the corporations tell us.

If the free market had all the answers our train system would be appreciatively superior to the one we had in the seventies.

Its not.

 

[atrottel]

It's not the states job to educate, provide healthcare or charity. All of those things can be done much better by a free market that offers real choice and freedom over the kind of service you want to get for your money.

That's freedom, the ability to choose how to spend your money how you wish, on what you wish. It's also the nearest thing to democracy because it's a real meritocracy that provides services based on exactly how people 'vote', or spend, rather than the current majority = monopoly, minority = tough luck system.

I really don't get this "let me be rich and the money will magically trickle down to the poor" theory.

In days gone by you had your Port Sunlights, admittedly, but far more frequently you had people in desperate conditions in poorhouses, debtors' prisons or transported (or worse) for crimes against property.

In fact, we can look at an example right now of purist altruism at work. Millions of abandoned orphans around the world, dying of starvation, lacking education, condemned to an early grave through rampant disease.

We, meaning the people in well-off countries, are the rich. We could, if we wanted, transform the lives of these orphans with very small impact on our own consumer lifestyles. But we don't. It's not because we don't know, or we think that other people are doing it, or that we think that our contribution wouldn't have an effect. Because we know different.

That's why the structures of society exist. So that we, the people, can communally say what we won't personally:

• that we don't accept a lynch mob hanging a foreigner who looks a little bit like someone we are frightened of
• that we don't accept that it is right to send children up chimneys or into brothels when they should be at school
• that we don't accept that it is right that a company should bury its chemical waste next to a river because it is a cheaper option
• that we don't accept that you have a fundamental right to a better education or health care or voting rights or job or legal protection just because your parents came from a different background

Looking at that list above, I'd say that we still have a fair way to go - not that we should dismantle the state.

So how much of what goes out in taxes is required to 'maintain society'? I'd be quite happy to pay for a state police and legal system. Likewise an armed forces. It is the states job to protect its citizens.

Interesting choice of state structures "maintaining society" there, Bruce. The property owner's creed: "let me earn what's mine without the state's intervention and then let the state protect it for me".

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It really has nothing to do with Ayn Rand or Ronald Reagan. It's a basic principle of complex systems. Evolution is a system that works without one person/organisation directing things, I think when we did try to control evolution it was called eugenics and didn't work out so well. Language is another system that has no controlling force and is left to evolve naturally. Economics is undoubtably another, the Internet another. AI uses the same principles.

It simply isn't possible for any centralised organisation to know how to direct my life better than I myself know, and that applies to each and every one of us, and it applies for the simple fact that they cannot possibly have the information that we have about our lives. Rolling out the plight of the poor is a usual tactic when arguing for state intervention but it really has nothing to do with that.

This paragon that is the state after all has given society over 50 years of so called free education yet we still get thousands of kids leaving school unable to read and write. The Dickensian insight into a future of uneducated masses roaming the streets comitting crime and debauchery is surely already here. We need another approach. Our current one has been tried for some 70 years and is failing miserably. If the kids can't read or write they take dumbed down exams that universities tell us ill equip students for the basic rigours of a degree course.

Once again, to use education as the source, we live in a society where government overtly dictates how children are educated. What if that method is wrong? Have you thought about it? Where's the innovation in how children learn? One of the great things about a market is the diffusion of ideas. There's an incentive to improve because you increase market share. It doesn't have to operate on a for profit basis, after all the private school system is operated on charitable status.

Likewise this utopian world of preventative healthcare. Where has this gone? We've had the NHS for 70 years and still people smoke themselves to an early grave. Still people eat themselves into clinical obesity. Still some 50% of all births are unplanned. Alcoholism is destroying the nations livers. Where exactly is this utopian society of unbridled state governed health? Do people not know how to put a condom on, or how eating Big Macs will be bad for their health? This system simply is not working.

It's interesting that you mention organic society Leon, and I quite agree, except by its very nature, organic systems develop from the bottom up. They don't develop from the top down. This is precisely what I'm advocating. One of the things I'm hoping to talk to the club about in the new year is this very topic. Rather than using the club as the sole source of ideas (ie top down) I want them to utilise the brains of all of us fans, the diversity of opinions and experience that we each have. Get us solving problems and providing insight because the chances are so much higher that we could do it than they could.

This isn't some missive about rich and poor, it's a dictum for the rights of man. It's about how each and every one of us has the capabilities to do great things without a nanny presence looming over us. It seems that I have faith in humanity whereas you don't. That's a shame. That's a real shame.