Top Cop: Flag burning should be a crime

#1
Sir Ian Blair has said in a Mail On Sunday article that Flag burning should be made a a criminal offence under new anti terrorist laws.

Agree as it only seems to be the "extremist element" within the Muslim faith that do it..
 
#3
And NO, enough of our civil liberties have disappeared under this Govt, setting fire to the Jack is the province of arrseholes - photograpth them by all means but do not ban it.
 
#6
So Britain is "facing its biggest threat since WW2". The prospect of NBC attacks on London looms large. MI5/6 are on a war footing. Coppers walk the streets carrying chemical warfare suits and we've seen tanks parked outside Heathrow.

The answer: Ban flag burning. Oh yes, that'll send Ossama and hs mates running for cover.

Isn't flag burning already covered by the arson laws anyway?

If I was a cynical type I might think this is a populist stunt that's part of a concerted effort by New Labour & Co. to try to recover from the PR disaster visited on them by the Home Office during the last year.

I see Gordo is in today's papers saying he'll be in charge of national security when he's PM. That gives me a warm, secure feeling - in my underpants.
 
#7
let them burn flags usally they just make themselves look bigger tits than they already are.
were british not american.
everyone seen that photo of some pakistiani setting himself alight while trying to burn the american flag would love to see that happen in london :twisted:
 
#8
Unfortunatly I think we have to respect their right to burn the flags, I don't like it but the whole point of what this country (should) be about is freedom of speech and expression!

Again,, just to point out, I don't agree with their flag burning, the feckers should have some respect, but i agree with their right to do it!
 
#9
I think he's right and I also think it should be illegal to cover your face on a demonstration or wear a crash helmet on a demo. Burning a Nations flag could get you knicked anyway as 'Behaviour likely to cause a Breach of the Peace'.
 
#10
I hardly think worrying about flag burning is top priority for our Government at the moment, they want to try sorting out the immigration first. Personally I do find it offensive, and it makes me wonder what would happen if you went to Iraq and burnt their flag there?
 
#11
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/11/01/do0101.xml

"We should be flying the flag, not worrying about burning it"

It is quite normal for Labour to seek to deal with Muslim radicals by aiming their measures at the rest of us (religious hatred legislation, banning crucifixes because of concerns about veils, attacking all faith schools because you can't single out the madrassas etc). What is especially feeble about this law is that it is aimed at a symptom of Muslim disaffection, not the malady itself. The scandal is not that some silly young men might set fire to our flag and chant nauseating slogans. It is that boys who grew up in Tipton and Wanstead and Beeston want to kill their own countrymen.
 
#12
Ancient_Mariner said:
So Britain is "facing its biggest threat since WW2". The prospect of NBC attacks on London looms large. MI5/6 are on a war footing. Coppers walk the streets carrying chemical warfare suits and we've seen tanks parked outside Heathrow.

The answer: Ban flag burning. Oh yes, that'll send Ossama and hs mates running for cover.

Isn't flag burning already covered by the arson laws anyway?

If I was a cynical type I might think this is a populist stunt that's part of a concerted effort by New Labour & Co. to try to recover from the PR disaster visited on them by the Home Office during the last year.

I see Gordo is in today's papers saying he'll be in charge of national security when he's PM. That gives me a warm, secure feeling - in my underpants.

Some friends of mine recently got married in the local town hall. As the happy couple left the registry office, and stopped for photos at the top of the grand central stairs, they were horrified to see a huge stars and stripes on display. The groom was tempted to put a lighter under it before proceeding down the staircase with the blushing bride, but realised that this might be deemed arson. So if he ever gets married again at the same venue, he's going to take it down, roll it up and put it under his arm. Then, emerging into daylight, under clouds of confetti, he'll unfurl it, set it alight, and jump up and down on it before proceeding to the reception.
 
#13
Given the result in the BNP "Free Speech" saga flag burners will get away with it regardless of any law - existing or new.
I had thought that we had a law covering flag burning. They may have dropped it but I remember that Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 covers (among other things) "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour" which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Beauty of this is that this section would also cover almost everything happening at a demo. which makes it easier to brief officers prior to their going on duty.
 
#14
It appears Sir Ian Blair needs reminding of 2 things.

1. As so well pointed out by ORC above , can any serving Police confirm?

2. Your master is on his way out Sir Ian , this soundbite is too liittle, too late. Why not concentrate on , oh I don't know running the Met and giving your troops what they need and on time?

..amd his soundbite this momrning "Oh I'm not saying we should, but German prosecutors can detain for up to a year"

FFS , say what you mean you Jellyfish.
 
#15
Funny that!

Sir Richard Dannatt is castigated for making remarks about the Army that are deemed 'unconstitutional'.

Yet the head of the Metropolitan Police is calling for changes in the law he is paid to enforce!

If Sir Richard is to be silenced because he is paid to 'soldier' then Sir Ian should shut his mouth and get on with what he is paid to do: "Copppering"

A blue uniform has no greater currency of value in the constitutional separation of powers than a Khaki one!

If a government acknowleges, accepts and acts upon the words of a man in a blue uniform, then they can extend the same consideration to a man in Service Dress!

They cannot have it both ways!

Sir Richard is head of the entire Army - our top soldier - Sir Ian is the head of a single Police Force - London, he is not a General and does not speak for any other Police Force!

I have already heard Blair speak and air his views about 'internment being necessary if there is another terrorist attack in he UK' and quite frankly I am getting rather fed up of his announcements in the media!

If he wants to enter politics then get out of a blue uniform and get elected, otherwise shut the fcuk up as Sir Richard has to!
 
#16
Internment? I hadn't heard that before. I was there when they started it in NI and it was a disaster. Not so much the actual operation although some of that was a joke (tps sent to arrest known terr at an address - house burned down 18 months previously. Arrest Sean McSomeone. House contained 3 generations each with a Sean) The number lifted then was nothing compared with the sort of numbers we are getting for terrs today. A Maze in every public park? And who would do the lifting - tps on an Awayday from Basrah? Took the Met how many hundreds to arrest two innocent men at Walthamstow? Time lost whilst discussing if Muslim police officers could be used? What about illegals who have dropped off the radar - perhaps we could ask them to give themselves up in the name of niceness. Do the Armed Intervention teams have enough ammunition to deal with people who do/do not vault barriers and run/walk towards a train?
Internment! Bloody good laugh I reckon.
There must be some sort of curse on the name Blair. Do we have any Blairs on here who can tell us how the Gods smile on them - or not.
 
#18
frenchperson said:
Some friends of mine recently got married in the local town hall. As the happy couple left the registry office, and stopped for photos at the top of the grand central stairs, they were horrified to see a huge stars and stripes on display. The groom was tempted to put a lighter under it before proceeding down the staircase with the blushing bride, but realised that this might be deemed arson. So if he ever gets married again at the same venue, he's going to take it down, roll it up and put it under his arm. Then, emerging into daylight, under clouds of confetti, he'll unfurl it, set it alight, and jump up and down on it before proceeding to the reception.
Your friend probably made the right decision Frogbloke.

Confetti, wedding dresses and Ann Summers bridal lingerie are all highly inflamable. Your friend could have created one of those iconic moments as his bride of five minutes was engulfed in a blazing stars and stripes.

Rich in symbolism, the resultant wedding photo would have been the stuff of Pulitzer Prizes. Your mate, the world's fastest widower, would have put that photo of the burning Buddhist monk (link) into the shade with one flick of his trusty Zippo.
 
#19
calm down, it's only the commissioner's gaff of the week.

(but still not as funny as tape recording the Attorney General during a phone call and getting caught; clearly never worked in the Specialist Operations wing, eh guv'nor :twisted: )

He could call for flag burning to be made a specific offence, but he'd never have the balls to back his officers enforcing it ("racist Met officers pounce on protesters whilst jeering BNP stand nearby", anyone else see that newspaper article). Anyway, his Assisstant Tariq Ghaffur suggested this some weeks ago and not much has happened (though look for a small clause in the upcoming terrorism bill!)

s1 of the criminal damage act would only cover burning your own flag if it endangered anothers life (which i suppose arguably waving a burning flag in public might), but there are a raft of potential offences under the public order act that could be used. if only there was the will. burning anyone else's flag is straight-up CD and arrestable on the spot

"Noble Cause Corruption" when mentioned by Condon was referring to officers doing the wrong thing for the perceived social good; ie, giving johnny burglar a crowbar to hold and then nicking him for going equipped to get him off the streets for the night. Not defending it; but at least it's different to taking a bung for yourself.

Blair might not know a bloody thing about policing; but that's why he's the boss;

The Dilbert Principle is a variation of the Peter Principle. The Peter Principle addresses the practice of hierarchical organizations (such as companies and corporations) that use promotions as a way to reward employees that demonstrate competence in their current position. It goes on to state that, due to this practice, a competent employee will eventually be promoted to, and remain at, a position at which he or she is incompetent. The Dilbert Principle, however, goes a step farther, claiming that management is defined by not only incompetence, but total incompetence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_Principle

I bought my copy of the dilbert principle before joining and was horrifed at the similarities to the police.
 
#20
Iolis said:
The man is as 'loopy' has his predecessor, Sir Paul Condon who said of Police Corruption in the Met: "It was done for a noble cause"
Thanks for internment link. I can tease out the Condom thing as I was on the edges of the blokes he referred to. Detectives were very frustrated at putting their bodies on the line and the savage hours worked only to see the villians walk favour of poor prosecution and/or sharp lawyers who exploited every trick in the book. Way beyond their duty to see the geezer got a fair trial - they were paid on results and that was a Not Guilty finding. The IRA bombing campaigns on the mainland created anger that this should happen. A body at all costs became the drive. You Irish? You'll do.
Really just a forerunner of what Ian of the Blairs is saying today. If you don't like the result - change the law. The guys back then changed Their Law. Now we have PACE.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts