...i'm not a racist - but hmmm how many callers to phone in shows begin with that line then continue with "but his name was mohamed"...

a police state is not a state controlled by police, they are as much controlled as anyone else is in such a state. We do have it quite good (not ****ing good) so let's keep it that way.

__________________

So who's controlling the police? And if we have it "quite good" tell that to the many innocent Irish people jailed for 18 years in the UK; Tell it to the British citizens illegally kidnapped and imprisoned without trial in Guantanamo... as they say on that "Jungle " TV show....it could be you!

Damn - I promised myself not to get drawn in .......

Cammie, not sure you can lay the blame of British Citizens in Guantanamo on Britain. I think the citizens were brought out by the british government. short of going to war with the Americans not sure what they could do more, for the citizens

The Irish, of course, yes, that was a problem. When using the term quite good I reckon he ewas probably saying quite in comparison to (in no particualr order, and not exclusively):

Russia
America
China
Burma
Zimbabwe
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Angola
Congo
Indonesia
Malaysia
Saudi
Uzbekistan
Iran
Cuba

etc etc

I always love people here harping on about how opressed we are. We are not and we are privilidged compared the majority of the world! Most people in the world would give their right arms to live here. And I do mean that literally in every sense.

Of course, it is our duty as citizens of the country to keep it this way by stopping bad legislation coming in etc. But man the moaning minis of this country, to me, are the worst things about it ....


Right thats it, got it off my chest.

__________________
Ollie

www.jollyfollies.com

Land's End to Sydney 2009

Good points Ollie - and I tried to resist comment too but I couldn't help it!

The UK govt did nothing for years about Guan. It was a disgrace. They only got involved recently because the US wants to shut down this hideous jail. And the UK took orders as usual, just as over Iraq.

Dont forget that the US invaded British territory some years back and the uk whimpered but said and did nothing about it.

Those above who think the state is benign should look at McCarthyism, Guan., the H Block prisons, the Diplock courts and many other examples.

As far as I am aware the British government was one of the first people to get it's citizens out of Guantanamo. It was the residence and others that they did not help (why should they???). I totally do not agree with Guantanamo BTW. They should fight to close it yes, but if you are complaining about the way the govenment interferes with British citizens you are choicing the wrong example, I am led to believe anyhow. If you know different let me know please!

I do agree that the state is by no means benign, but I just ask for a little bit of balance. To the everyday Jo, this country has a lot of good things going for it. To compare this in ANY way to Nazi Germany, as has been implied in other posts, to me shows either ignorance of what went on 70 years ago, or just a very bad argument.

Bit there are problems I do agree, but keep the scale correct is all I ask.

But to me, this debate is important ....... and the only way to keep it serious is to keep the hyperbole out and the facts in.

__________________
Ollie

www.jollyfollies.com

Land's End to Sydney 2009

Hi Ollie, I would urge you to read a copy of the book Taking Liberties in order to gain a balanced view. There is no "innocent till proven guilty", no " freedom of speach" either in the UK now. I regret this but must still observe it to be so. Linzi.

Hi Ollie

No hyperbole BTW- not from me anyway. I did not say the UK was the worst, so you'll need to rethink that... And I didnt link the UK to Nazi Germany; please read the post accurately - find out about the word "Stasi". I also mentioned several issues where the UK has denied liberties that were hard won; you don't refer to these issues.

Liberty is not a privilege handed out by governments. It doesn't belong to them like some commodity.

I am against complacency in the UK, where people imagine that everything's OK. Don't forget you are a "subject" in the UK, whose Head of State is a monarch; a country without a written Constitution, and whose Upper House is stuffed with unelected geriatrics.

It's lucky we are also at least European citizens.

Come on Ollie - you've got a lot of reading to catch up on!

OK Linz - challenge accepted and Taking Libertiesordered from Amazon, and due to being a prime customer should arrive tomorrow I will read it asap.

Of course I will read it in the same vein as anything that could be slanted tomwards one side (great example Michael Moore films- yes I am anti bush/war etc, but one has to to the whole truth, otherwise it is just propoganda !!). Looking forward to it.

Cammie - from my response you may think I hold the opposite view to you, but I am not. I am very much a libertarian, and anti monarchy etc etc. But I am also a commited realistic and optimist. Trust me, I am more anti big brother than most, but if all it does it protect us (really not government spin) then, well maybe I am prepared to accept that vs some other 'nasties' that could be coming our way.

Vive la revolution! But be nice too

PS - I may have dragged this thread a little of the original topic. Sorry

__________________
Ollie

www.jollyfollies.com

Land's End to Sydney 2009

I have never really understood why people raise this as an issue, yes we are subjects rather than citizens, yes we have no constitution, but how many other countries enjoy more personal freedoms than we do?

Post Scrip: ...just heard that someone tried to take a picture of this facility at Wythenshawe. He was arrested and his camera taken off him.

__________________

Fastship I still don't see an issue with lots of the points you raise, and indeed I can see benefits in them, rather than quote the whole post I will just address a couple of points:

ID Card - I personally don't have any major issue with a national ID card scheme, in fact a comprehensive ID card scheme could be a convenience in many ways as it provides a single easy method of proving your identity, better than turning up at places with the collection of bank statements, utility bills, driving licences and passport. And having a foolproof (OK that may be optimistic) way of proving my identity could be a benefit.

A national DNA database - I am 100% in favour of this and if they introduced even a voluntary one I would submit my DNA straight away. Why we don't have this already, along with a fingerprint database I don't know, as long as access to them was limited to law enforcement then, in my opinion, the only people that would need to be concerned about them would be criminals.

Regarding e-borders and storing travel history again it is not something I am opposed to, I would imagine such data would be very useful to security services and law enforcement.

Could any of the above be abused, of course they could, but I don't automatically assume that they will be, and if they aren't abused then I certainly don't see them as a threat to personal freedom or liberty.

I suppose it all comes down to personal belief in what the information is being collected for, if you could please answer me the following question:

Assuming that a DNA database, ID cards and the full e-borders scheme was implemented and also assuming that they were used as they should be (access to the information by law enforcement and security services only) then what is the harm?