Thread: Most eloquent rant ever on loss of civil liberties

Slightly 'off topic', I used to worry when I saw the names of these" so called celebs" and I hadn,t a clue who they are. You see I really only read "Littlejohn" and ARRSE and I don,t do TV (I know, I must get out more) But I am beginning to think, that I am much better off not cluttering my head with all this dross, which is mostly what is innuring and anaesthetising the general voting populace against labour,s abominations. Lowlife in the UK has found their own soma (Brave new world).

Originally Posted by Dread99

Slightly 'off topic', I used to worry when I saw the names of these" so called celebs" and I hadn,t a clue who they are. You see I really only read "Littlejohn" and ARRSE and I don,t do TV (I know, I must get out more) But I am beginning to think, that I am much better off not cluttering my head with all this dross, which is mostly what is innuring and anaesthetising the general voting populace against labour,s abominations. Lowlife in the UK has found their own soma (Brave new world).

These vacuous eejit celebs are to Western societies what the circuses were to Rome. How the fools here get upset about some dross on 'The Idol' or 'Bachelor' when their nation is collapsing around them is beyond comprehension.

Originally Posted by KevinB

. . . fools here get upset about some dross on 'The Idol' or 'Bachelor' when their nation is collapsing around them is beyond comprehension.

. . .err . . WTF are they?

Originally Posted by Stonker

Originally Posted by KevinB

. . . fools here get upset about some dross on 'The Idol' or 'Bachelor' when their nation is collapsing around them is beyond comprehension.

. . .err . . WTF are they?

Some feckwitted US telly programmes I've never watched, but may be alone in this.

An article from the Daily Mail which, once the sensationalist headline is discarded raises serious issues of the distinction to be drawn between education and indoctrination of the young.


What are, for example the proper boundaries between the both. Where does education end and indoctrination begin? Is the state right to override the rights of the parents to raise their children with a set of moral values which conflict with the values of a government which does not command the democratic legitimacy of the majority of the enfranchised population it governs?

Do you in handing you child over to the care of the state education authorities to receive compulsory education, impliedly agree that the state may, without your knowledge or approval, substitute the morality of the state for a morality that is in direct conflict with what you have raised your children to believe and that the price to be paid for your objection is a prison sentence?

It is significant to note that this newspaper, like the Times, has censored not the article itself, it has, instead, removed the comments of those who have anything sensible to say in the comment section.

It will also be interesting to see whether and to what extent this issue is reported and handled by the rest of the media.

My own view is that the Board of School Governors is the proper forum for parents to vent their disapproval and it is for the board of governors to act in accordance with the wishes of the parents by compelling the school to remove material to which they may object. The difficulty is, of course where the headteacher has no discretion over the content of the teaching syllabus. which is decided by central government.

It may arouse strong comment and those who choose to respond should not feel constrained by the expected 'conditioned' fear that what you say may have a perjorative label 'homophobic' attached to it, since the issues go far beyond that!

Originally Posted by Iolis

An article from the Daily Mail which, once the sensationalist headline is discarded raises serious issues of the distinction to be drawn between education and indoctrination of the young.


What are, for example the proper boundaries between the both. Where does education end and indoctrination begin? Is the state right to override the rights of the parents to raise their children with a set of moral values which conflict with the values of a government which does not command the democratic legitimacy of the majority of the enfranchised population it governs?

Do you in handing you child over to the care of the state education authorities to receive compulsory education, impliedly agree that the state may, without your knowledge or approval, substitute the morality of the state for a morality that is in direct conflict with what you have raised your children to believe and that the price to be paid for your objection is a prison sentence?

It is significant to note that this newspaper, like the Times, has censored not the article itself, it has, instead, removed the comments of those who have anything sensible to say in the comment section.

It will also be interesting to see whether and to what extent this issue is reported and handled by the rest of the media.

My own view is that the Board of School Governors is the proper forum for parents to vent their disapproval and it is for the board of governors to act in accordance with the wishes of the parents by compelling the school to remove material to which they may object. The difficulty is, of course where the headteacher has no discretion over the content of the teaching syllabus. which is decided by central government.

It may arouse strong comment and those who choose to respond should not feel constrained by the expected 'conditioned' fear that what you say may have a perjorative label 'homophobic' attached to it, since the issues go far beyond that!

"We are sorry but reader comments are currently unavailable"...

...more likely unprintable!

If the article is accurate, then the appropriate provision is Section 444 (1) of the Education Act 1996 which provides that “If a child of compulsory school age who is a registered pupil at a school fails to attend regularly at the school, his parent is guilty of an offence�. As previously interpreted by the Divisional Court in Barnfather v Islington Health Authority [2003] EWHC 418 (Admin) this provision imposes strict liability. That is to say, liability will exist in the absence of intention. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1,000; an aggravated version, added in 2000, now makes the parent liable to imprisonment where he knew of the failure to attend school and negligently failed to do anything about it.

Ex hypothesi, it would suggest law enacted for one purpose, being interpreted and applied for another purpose beyond which it was intended for.

It is saying, in effect; "it is not for you to question the moral purity of socialist thinking. It is for us, not you to decide what is or is not moral. Just ensure you child attends for 're-education' class or be sent to the Gulag!

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

PLEASE READ ON, THIS IS NOT A ‘SPAM’ MESSAGE

Most people are unaware that in 2005 a fundamental change in police powers was quietly passed into law; a change that directly affects the life and liberty of you and every person in this country.

Section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 was ‘tacked onto’ an otherwise acceptable piece of legislation and allows ANY police officer in England and Wales to arrest, (i.e. physically detain, handcuff and take to a police station for a DNA sample), ANY person, for ANY offence, no matter how trivial and whether or not a power of arrest previously existed for that offence. People can now be, (and have been), arrested and detained under Section 110 for not wearing a seatbelt; dropping litter; shouting in the presence of a police officer, climbing a tree, and building a snowman. Whereas police officers used to have to justify every arrest and be aware of whether or not a particular piece of legislation gave them power, they no longer have to do so. The power to deprive someone of their liberty should only be exercised in the most extreme circumstances, yet young and inexperienced police officers, (and soon, PCSO’s), are being trained that arrest and detention of a suspect is the first option in most encounters with the public. This sweeping power is being roundly abused on a daily basis in all of the 43 police forces in this country and puts you, your wife, husband or partner, your children and your friends at risk of arbitrary action by the police.

I spent 35 years of my adult life in the Police Service and am appalled by what it has become, largely as a result of powers such as those granted under Section 110.

Petitioning the Prime Minister will probably do little to stop the drift of this country to what has been described as a ‘Stasi State’ but I would nonetheless ask that you consider placing your signature on the petition - if only to see how the government responds to genuine concern from thoughtful citizens.

If you are sympathetic to this project, please forward this message and link to other friends, colleagues or bodies concerned about civil liberties.

The link to the petition is below:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PowersofArrest/
Thank you,

David Gilbertson QPM
(formerly Assistant Inspector of Constabulary
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary,
Home Office (retired 2001))

done & bump!

Originally Posted by Herrumph

done & bump!

Bumped again.

Shame the plod at the Anglian parade were not as switched on to their powers of arrest as the one's who nicked the rouge snowman builder.

While I am at it does anyone else find this to be extraordinarily sinister?

Banks want to know if you are a political thought criminal?

Done

Originally Posted by Ord_Sgt

I think the Tories are keeping their powder dry. This is the longest serving socialist government in our history, the experiment will never be repeated, you couldn't fcuk it up as much with a brewery of whisky and an Afghanistan of smack even if you tried. Labour are destined for the bin of history. I predict - god forgive me for saying it - the LIb Dems will replace them at the next election as the second party.

The down side of course is a generation will need to repay the debt!!!

With luck socialism will land in the bin of history along with communism; neither is a functional long-term government and both have only really flowered in the twentieth century. I think the one thing that permits socialism to exist is the existence of a vote for each and every adult in the country, including those who are subsisting upon the charity of the State (NOT employed by the State, I hasten to add; the military, police and so on are in gainful employment by an employer that just so happens to be the State).

If you amend the laws so that only persons who are either paying tax or are married to (NOT a "partner" of, but explicitly and legally married) someone who pays tax, or who are retired having paid a set amount of tax over their working lives are permitted to vote, then you have a much healthier system in place. Such a system would prevent workshy dole claimants from voting in parties which promised them a greater share of the money of the working folk, which is our current ill.

Of course, such a system would get us booted out of the EU forthwith and internationally villified as impossibly anti-democratic, but quite frankly democracy only works if you prevent the parasites and morons from perverting it, and this is the only way to do it.

Originally Posted by insert-coin-here

Originally Posted by Herrumph

done & bump!

Bumped again.

Shame the plod at the Anglian parade were not as switched on to their powers of arrest as the one's who nicked the rouge snowman builder.

While I am at it does anyone else find this to be extraordinarily sinister?

Banks want to know if you are a political thought criminal?

Taken in isolation, it could be forgiven, It is however, one of many such stories.....

With luck socialism will land in the bin of history along with communism

With luck yes but I actually imagine communism will be making something of a comeback in the foreseeable future..

While I am at it does anyone else find this to be extraordinarily sinister?

Almost an understatement.

At what point is the line drawn between accepted social behavour and the enforcement of what is what is right and wrong through legislation and the subsequent application of the law.


Are we blindly /obediantly slipping down a slope of "Nanny state knows best" and therefore "you leave it all to us " to enforce, control everything that goes on.

At what point do we completely hand over all responsibility for ours and others actions to the state to manage our lives so we can get on with being self centred and look after number 1.

Ignorence of what is going on around you is just as sickening as knowing whats going on and turning a blind eye......

Of course if everyone was given an RFID chip implant and an individual IP address perhaps tattoed on to a wrist (sound familiar) then we would be all safe and sound, no need for money or DNA Databases... Everyone being tracked and recorded 24/7. no more crime or anti social behavour. Everyone doing as they are told for the good of the state......No need to track veh movements when you can track individuals.

Every copper has a scanner to prove your id, the assumption of guilt and wrong doing etc etc.