Britain as a police state: What is happening there?
RichA
that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
them?
Amateur Photographer:
An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who was stopped
while taking innocent photos in central London were themselves quizzed
while filming.
London Tonight reporter Marcus Powell was stopped by police in the
City who told him that filming was not allowed.
The incident, yesterday morning, occurred while the crew were
attempting to film a piece about Grant Smith who was searched by
police after taking pictures for a project on churches 24 hours
earlier.
The crew were allowed to continue, but only after Powell showed the
police officer his press card.
The drama took place shortly before the ITN crew crossed the river to
interview AP's news editor for an item broadcast on More4 News last
night.
Bristolian
So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and, when given
an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue. Sounds quite reasonable
to me.
--
Regards
Bristolian
MC
> I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
> that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
> or hassling photographers?
Used to be quite common. However, police chiefs started to advise
officers on the ground the correct interpretation of Section 44 of the
anti terrorist laws and ordering them not to hassle photographers
anymore. Since then the occurences of these situations have become a
lot more rare. There only seems to be the occasional incident these
days and even then these are normally only instigated by overzealous or
idiotic security guards and PCSOs.
I do not know how you can say these incidents are almost daily because
you are far, far from correct.
MC
Twibil
>
>
> I do not know how you can say these incidents are almost daily because
> you are far, far from correct.
Are you conversant with the words "trolling" and "disturbed"?
No, don't thank me, just plonk him.
Ray Fischer
>I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
>that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
>or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
>terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
>them?
I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
terrorists.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Fr...@zappa.com
that BS has been going on in Britain for a long time. there's no England now. your gov't shat on you every day
in many ways for many years. surveillance, high taxes, nanny state nonsense, unchecked immigration of people
who hate you, what could possibly be wrong with Dear Old Blighty?
Churchill vomits in his own grave whilst Hitler smiles.
Eric Stevens
Are you really saying that 'leftards' don't?
Eric Stevens
Paul Heslop
--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
RustY �
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:020b5900-b370-4f72...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
> that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
> or hassling photographers?
What do you think about this Rich ?
mikeos
>
>> An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who was stopped
>> while taking innocent photos in central London were themselves quizzed
>> while filming.
>
> an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue. Sounds quite reasonable
> to me.
Does it? It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was filming.
Were they breaking a law? Why was it necessary to demand ID? It is not
necessary to carry ID in Britain. What if they didn't have any?
MC
You do not have to provide any ID whatsoever if you are merely stopped.
Even if they decide to conduct a search under section 44 you still do
not have to provide your details. You only have to tell them who you
are if they intend to report you for a crime or you are arrested.
MC
Bruce
All very well in theory, but in practice, refusing to tell them who
you are makes you significantly more likely to be arrested, with an
automatic demand for a DNA sample and your details recorded on the
police database.
Whatever the principle, whatever the theory, in the real world you
have to decide whether that principle - however laudable it may be -
is worth giving your DNA for and having your name on police record.
It's your choice, but I know which one I would make.
MC
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:10:12 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>
> > mikeos wrote:
> >
> >> Bristolian wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who was
> >> > > stopped while taking innocent photos in central London were
> >> > > themselves quizzed while filming.
> >> >
> >> > So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and, when
> >> > given an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue. Sounds
> >> > quite reasonable to me.
> >>
> >> Does it? It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was
> >> filming. Were they breaking a law? Why was it necessary to demand
> ID? >> It is not necessary to carry ID in Britain. What if they
> didn't have >> any?
> >
> > You do not have to provide any ID whatsoever if you are merely
> > stopped. Even if they decide to conduct a search under section 44
> > you still do not have to provide your details. You only have to
> > tell them who you are if they intend to report you for a crime or
> > you are arrested.
>
>
> All very well in theory, but in practice, refusing to tell them who
> you are makes you significantly more likely to be arrested, with an
> automatic demand for a DNA sample and your details recorded on the
> police database.
>
You can only be arrested if the police have reasonable grounds to
believe you have committed an arrestable offence. This is happening
less and less as citizens become more aware of their rights under the
law and more people than ever making complaints to the Police
Complaints Commission aginst wrongful arrest. Not only are more people
having their complaints upheld but PCs on the ground are finding it
such a hassle to be subject to complaints investigations, however minor
the hassles may be, that the days of arrest first ask questions later
are becoming fewer and fewer. It is just not worth the trouble to them
to arrest you because you have pissed them off.
> Whatever the principle, whatever the theory, in the real world you
> have to decide whether that principle - however laudable it may be -
> is worth giving your DNA for and having your name on police record.
>
You will only have your DNA collected if you are "charged" with an
offence. You cannot and will not have your DNA collected for a mere
arrest. You can even be arrested and de arrested at the scene.
You are very, very unlikely to be arrested, let alone charged, just for
withholding your details. You have a legal right to silence and thus
do not have to provide datails. To be arrested and charged there must
have been a good reason to cause the arrest in the first place.
MC
Bruce
Yes, I know the theory. Thank you for repeating it, again and again.
My decision would still be the same. Pragmatism before principle.
Bowser
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gat3i5t2jma303s5h...@4ax.com...
Maybe. Some of us value our civil rights over everything. Once our rights
are limited, what's left? Once freedoms are taken away, the terrorists have
won.
Chris Malcolm
> I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
> that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
> or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
> terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
> them?
You're rather late with this news. That used to be what was
happening. It was clearly an abuse of the powers police have been
granted to counter terrorism etc.. This was pointed out by many
photographers and photography organisations. Questions were raised in
the media and asked in Parliament. As a result special guidelines were
issued to the police on how they should interpret their powers and
deal with photographers. Most photographers and photography
organisations have been very happy with these guidelines. Some
photographers now carry a copy around with them in case they are
accosted by a police officer who hasn't yet seen them.
Since then many photographers have reported the same experience as me:
the police and security guards are becoming a lot more friendly.
For example, a year ago if I was spotted carrying a big black camera
with knobs on by a police officer or security guard I was very likely
to be approached in a hostile manner. Nowadays they're as likely to
ignore me as approach me, and if they do approach me it's usually in
an apologetic and friendly fashion.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
Pragmatism? Do you often carry a big black camera around on the
streets of Britain? From the sound of your remarks you're an armchair
theorist who has little or no such practical experience. I speak as a
British photographer who is probably approached by police at least
once a week. A year ago they were usually hostile and sometimes pretty
threatening, but I was never arrested, asked for ID, or to see my
photographs, etc.. But I was nearly always told to stop taking
photographs. Since the recent guidelines were issued to the police
they have become very much more friendly. Now they usually ignore me,
and if they do approach me they're nearly always apologetic and
friendly, and have always been happy to let me continue photographing.
Of course there are still a few nasty incidents with ignorant and
officious bullies, but they're much rarer now.
--
Chris Malcolm
Twibil
>
>
> Of course there are still a few nasty incidents with ignorant and
> officious bullies, but they're much rarer now.
And to be fair, you're going to occasionally have incidents like that
anywhere that there are Policemen.
There are always at least a few who *took* the job so that they could
be government-sanctioned bullies.
MC
Again and again? Maybe it was not heard the first time.
> My decision would still be the same. Pragmatism before principle.
If you want to give in to this form of authoritarianism that is
entirely up to you. However, those who bow down to overzealous
security officers, PCSOs and plolice officers, give said officers the
idea that they have carte blanche to bully the next person too.
MC
J. Clarke
And those who don't bow down sometimes end up in traction. Rules like
"never obey the police when you think that your rights are being trodden
upon" are fine for people who don't have any life beyond "sticking it to the
man" but for those of us who have families and debts one needs a bit more
motivation.
>
> MC
tony cooper
Many people, like MC, talk a good game about how they would react if a
policeman asked for the ID. When it actually happens, they all of a
sudden remember that they have something very important to do
elsewhere and produce the ID in order not to be delayed from their
"important" errand.
I would. My schedule is pretty wide-open, but it doesn't allow for
wasted time arguing with a cop.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Bristolian
> Bristolian wrote:
>>
>>> An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who was stopped
>>> while taking innocent photos in central London were themselves quizzed
>>> while filming.
>>
>> So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and, when
>> given an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue. Sounds quite
>> reasonable to me.
>
> Does it?
SG: Yes
It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was filming.
SG: On the surface it may have appeared obvious what these people were
doing but it could have been ne'er-do-wells using the set-up as a cover
for something else
> Were they breaking a law?
SG: I don't know. Had the police not spoken to them and verified their
credentials we'd never know ... perhaps until a bomb went off
Why was it necessary to demand ID?
SG: I didn't say they demanded ID, just that it was provided and accepted
It is not necessary to carry ID in Britain.
SG: Quite right and long may that continue
What if they didn't have any?
SG: Who knows? Maybe the outcome would have been exactly the same but
just taken longer for the situation to be resolved.
The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what they
deserve. Treating every encounter with authority as if it were a battle
to be won at all costs is counter-productive and simply adds to the us
and them mentality.
Courtesy and cooperation costs nothing except your time :-)
--
Regards
Bristolian
MC
> > > >
> >>> You are very, very unlikely to be arrested, let alone charged,
> just >>> for withholding your details. You have a legal right to
> silence >>> and thus do not have to provide datails. To be arrested
> and >>> charged there must have been a good reason to cause the
> arrest in >>> the first place.
> > >
> > >
> >> Yes, I know the theory. Thank you for repeating it, again and
> again.
> >
> >
> > Again and again? Maybe it was not heard the first time.
> >
> >
> >> My decision would still be the same. Pragmatism before principle.
> >
> > If you want to give in to this form of authoritarianism that is
> > entirely up to you. However, those who bow down to overzealous
> > security officers, PCSOs and plolice officers, give said officers
> > the idea that they have carte blanche to bully the next person too.
>
> And those who don't bow down sometimes end up in traction. Rules
> like "never obey the police when you think that your rights are being
trodden upon"
> are fine for people who don't have any life beyond "sticking it to
the man" but for
> those of us who have families and debts one needs a bit more
motivation.
>
We are not talking about a case of "never obey the police when you
THINK that your rights are being trodden upon" We are talking about
exercising your rights, as laid down in law, when confronted by figures
of authority who, themselves, think they are above that law.
People who do not exercise or stand up for their rights are inviting a
situation which may find themselves manipulated and downtrodden.
However, in these situations please feel free to play the game however
you feel fit but I will not play by your rules, only by the rule of law.
MC
Bruce
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>And those who don't bow down sometimes end up in traction. Rules like
>"never obey the police when you think that your rights are being trodden
>upon" are fine for people who don't have any life beyond "sticking it to the
>man" but for those of us who have families and debts one needs a bit more
>motivation.
Absolutely right!
Eric Stevens
You missed that my response entailed a change of subject. Saying that
"rightards LIKE it when the government goes after terrorists", with
all that that statement implies, is not the same as saying that
somebody doesn't value a particular civil right.
Eric Stevens
MC
Actually, I have been there and done that. I have never given my name
as I am not obliged to do so and I do not carry ID as, under UK law, I
am also not obliged to do.
> I would. My schedule is pretty wide-open, but it doesn't allow for
> wasted time arguing with a cop.
No need for arguments, just a polite refusal to disclose your details
and let them do what they have to do. Unless they have reason to
suspect you of wrong doing you will normally be sent on your way within
a minute or two, especially as they realise they had no reason to stop
you in the first place. By showing ID or giving them your details you
are no more guaranteed to be sent on your way quickly than you are by
not not giving your details.
MC
Bruce
>We are not talking about a case of "never obey the police when you
>THINK that your rights are being trodden upon" We are talking about
>exercising your rights, as laid down in law, when confronted by figures
>of authority who, themselves, think they are above that law.
>
>People who do not exercise or stand up for their rights are inviting a
>situation which may find themselves manipulated and downtrodden.
>However, in these situations please feel free to play the game however
>you feel fit but I will not play by your rules, only by the rule of law.
To you, it is a game. You said so above, quite clearly.
To me, it isn't a game. It is real life, and it is my livelihood.
You state with absolute confidence what you *would do* in the
situation we are discussing. That makes it clear that you have never
been in that situation. So you can theorise just as much as you want.
Those of us who have been in that situation, and are working in
photography for a living, see it rather differently. Like it or not,
you and I have very different points of view.
You have every right to your point of view, and I have every right to
mine. The difference is, your point of view is unlikely ever to be
tested, except in theory and on Usenet newsgroups.
MC
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:53:34 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>
> > We are not talking about a case of "never obey the police when you
> > THINK that your rights are being trodden upon" We are talking about
> > exercising your rights, as laid down in law, when confronted by
> > figures of authority who, themselves, think they are above that law.
> >
> > People who do not exercise or stand up for their rights are
> > inviting a situation which may find themselves manipulated and
> > downtrodden. However, in these situations please feel free to play
> > the game however you feel fit but I will not play by your rules,
> > only by the rule of law.
>
>
> To you, it is a game. You said so above, quite clearly.
>
> To me, it isn't a game. It is real life, and it is my livelihood.
"Playing the game". It is a figure of speach. It means playing by the
rules
>
> You state with absolute confidence what you *would do* in the
> situation we are discussing. That makes it clear that you have never
> been in that situation. So you can theorise just as much as you want.
Not necessarily under section 44 but I have been in similar stuations,
yes.
>
> Those of us who have been in that situation, and are working in
> photography for a living, see it rather differently. Like it or not,
> you and I have very different points of view.
>
Which I respect. Everybody, deals with situations their own way. Mine
is to protect, as much as I can, my personal space and privacy.
> You have every right to your point of view, and I have every right to
> mine. The difference is, your point of view is unlikely ever to be
> tested, except in theory and on Usenet newsgroups.
Again you can do it your way I will do it mine. We will just have to
agree to disagree.
MC
John Ray
> Bristolian wrote:
>
> Why was it necessary to demand ID? It is not
> necessary to carry ID in Britain.
Not yet, but it's only a matter of time.
--
John Ray
RichA
Ray Fischer wrote:
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
> >that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
> >or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
> >terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
> >them?
>
> I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
> terrorists.
>
Most sane people do. But not innocent people. I figure maybe they
randomly target Brit whites (most of the photogs harassed) to offset
any charges of racial profiling.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
>> >that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
>> >or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
>> >terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
>> >them?
>>
>> I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
>> terrorists.
>
>Most sane people do. But not innocent people.
And who are the guilty ones? Just the Muslims?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Paul Heslop
expected to happen I can't imagine.
--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
C J Campbell
> mikeos wrote:
>> Bristolian wrote:
>>>
>>>> An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who was stopped
>>>> while taking innocent photos in central London were themselves quizzed
>>>> while filming.
>>>
>>> So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and, when given
>>> an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue. Sounds quite
>>> reasonable to me.
>>
>
>> Does it?
>
> SG: Yes
>
> It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was filming.
>
> SG: On the surface it may have appeared obvious what these people were
> doing but it could have been ne'er-do-wells using the set-up as a cover
> for something else
>
>> Were they breaking a law?
>
> SG: I don't know. Had the police not spoken to them and verified their
> credentials we'd never know ... perhaps until a bomb went off
Been getting a lot of bombs in those cameras lately? Why would anyone
need to take a picture of a place before blowing it up?
>
> SG: Who knows? Maybe the outcome would have been exactly the same but
> just taken longer for the situation to be resolved.
>
> The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
> public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what they
> deserve. Treating every encounter with authority as if it were a battle
> to be won at all costs is counter-productive and simply adds to the us
> and them mentality.
>
> Courtesy and cooperation costs nothing except your time :-)
Yes. And it costs the police nothing, either.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Eric Stevens
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2009-12-11 14:14:24 -0800, Bristolian <n...@hereany.more> said:
>
>> mikeos wrote:
>>> Bristolian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who was stopped
>>>>> while taking innocent photos in central London were themselves quizzed
>>>>> while filming.
>>>>
>>>> So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and, when given
>>>> an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue. Sounds quite
>>>> reasonable to me.
>>>
>>
>>> Does it?
>>
>> SG: Yes
>>
>> It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was filming.
>>
>> SG: On the surface it may have appeared obvious what these people were
>> doing but it could have been ne'er-do-wells using the set-up as a cover
>> for something else
>>
>>> Were they breaking a law?
>>
>> SG: I don't know. Had the police not spoken to them and verified their
>> credentials we'd never know ... perhaps until a bomb went off
>
>Been getting a lot of bombs in those cameras lately? Why would anyone
>need to take a picture of a place before blowing it up?
To be able to show the bomber where to park his car or truck.
>>
>> SG: Who knows? Maybe the outcome would have been exactly the same but
>> just taken longer for the situation to be resolved.
>>
>> The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
>> public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what they
>> deserve. Treating every encounter with authority as if it were a battle
>> to be won at all costs is counter-productive and simply adds to the us
>> and them mentality.
>>
>> Courtesy and cooperation costs nothing except your time :-)
>
>Yes. And it costs the police nothing, either.
Eric Stevens
whisky-dave
personally
just in case I was spotted by CCTV.
Of course there's no possible way of parking anywhere in London without
taking a picture
of the place first. I wish you could reserve a parking space for the next
few days./weeks just
by taking a photo of it :-)
>>> The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
>>> public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what they
>>> deserve.
Not always true, I don;t think Charles de mendez got what he deserved.
>> Treating every encounter with authority as if it were a battle
>>> to be won at all costs is counter-productive and simply adds to the us
>>> and them mentality.
>>>
>>> Courtesy and cooperation costs nothing except your time :-)
>>
>>Yes. And it costs the police nothing, either.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
The police get paid for stopping people, I don;t get paid for being stopped,
few do,
most loose time when being stopped sometimes you actually loose pay too.
whisky-dave
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4b230649$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net...
It does seem that way, who was quilty of the 9/11 attacks, just Muslims
or is someone else to blame ?
Chris H
writes
>>>>
>>>>> Were they breaking a law?
>>>> SG: I don't know. Had the police not spoken to them and verified their
>>>> credentials we'd never know ... perhaps until a bomb went off
>>>Been getting a lot of bombs in those cameras lately? Why would anyone
>>>need to take a picture of a place before blowing it up?
>> To be able to show the bomber where to park his car or truck.
>I would have thought the bomber would have already known, but I'd use google
>personally
>just in case I was spotted by CCTV.
Exactly. Besides there are lots of pictures on the net anyway from
tourists.
If it is a real threat then Google is more guilty than any other person
or organisation of aiding terrorists. So when the Google is stopped
then you can start to prosecute photographers.
BTW Google has been asked to use lower resolution or avoid severall high
risk targets by several governments. As these are not in the USA Google
has refused... I assume that when any google staff visit those countries
their governments are quite justified in locking up the Google staff for
conspiracy for 15-20 years.
>Of course there's no possible way of parking anywhere in London without
>taking a picture
>of the place first. I wish you could reserve a parking space for the next
>few days./weeks just
>by taking a photo of it :-)
If you want photos or videos send in some teenagers or tourists with
camera-phones....
>>>> The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
>>>> public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what they
>>>> deserve.
>Not always true, I don;t think Charles de mendez got what he deserved.
He should not even have been there... he was well outside his visa
working as an electrician. With the current rules for electricians
Mendes was criminal in falsifying paperwork and certification quite
apart from being in the country illegally.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris H
writes
Remember that 9/11 was the third retaliation attack for other
atrocities. It seems some one had been targeting Muslims for some time
and they decided to strike back.
I note that when 20 US trained Saudis attacked the US the US then had a
"Crusade" against Afghanistan.
More important was the legitimate government of Afghanistan offered to
send Osama Bin Laden to the US *IF* the USA could show the standard
level of evidence required for normal extradition (even though the US
refused to recognise the legitimate government of Afghanistan)
The problem was that the US could not and still can not provide any
evidence that would stand up in court.
Bowser
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4b230649$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Well, I tried to find a news story of some lilly white terrorists, and so
far Tim McVeigh is the only one. So yes, so far it's only Muslims.
One thing about Islam, though, they seem to rely on a single solution for
anyone who dares to say something about Islam they don't like: death. You
write something they don't like? Death. Draw a cartoon? Death. Say
something? Death. See a pattern here? Why?
David J. Littleboy
"Bowser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4b230649$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
>>>> >that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
>>>> >or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
>>>> >terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
>>>> >them?
>>>>
>>>> I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
>>>> terrorists.
>>>
>>>Most sane people do. But not innocent people.
>>
>> And who are the guilty ones? Just the Muslims?
>
> Well, I tried to find a news story of some lilly white terrorists, and so
> far Tim McVeigh is the only one. So yes, so far it's only Muslims.
You're forgetting Northern Ireland.
The antrax attacks were never really solved. The guy being blamed (who
committed suicide) wasn't Muslim. Wasn't there a bomb at the Atlanta
Olympics? And the unibomber (who almost killed one of my Comp. Sci.
professors).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing
And lots of my lefty friends...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States
And we've blown up a lot of weddings, dropped a lot of drone-carried bombs
onto civilian houses. Pretty terrifying if you make the mistake of being
there...
And you are forgetting Yugoslavia, where Muslims were the victims of
horrendous crimes.
To say nothing of Israel's crimes against the Palestinians.
Lots of non-Muslim terrorism.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Ray Fischer
>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
>>>> >that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
>>>> >or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
>>>> >terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
>>>> >them?
>>>>
>>>> I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
>>>> terrorists.
>>>
>>>Most sane people do. But not innocent people.
>>
>> And who are the guilty ones? Just the Muslims?
>
>It does seem that way, who was quilty of the 9/11 attacks, just Muslims
>or is someone else to blame ?
Bigots always focus on the group that they hate.
Timothy McVeigh? That doesn't count for some reason. Israel's
invasion of Lebanon? That doesn't count for some reason.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>> >I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
>>>> >that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
>>>> >or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
>>>> >terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
>>>> >them?
>>>>
>>>> I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
>>>> terrorists.
>>>
>>>Most sane people do. But not innocent people.
>>
>> And who are the guilty ones? Just the Muslims?
>
>Well, I tried to find a news story of some lilly white terrorists, and so
>far Tim McVeigh is the only one. So yes, so far it's only Muslims.
Then you're obviously a bigot,
>One thing about Islam, though, they seem to rely on a single solution for
>anyone who dares to say something about Islam they don't like: death.
Like invading other countries and killing tens to hundreds of
thousands of people?
No, by the standards of you bigots that's "different". It's okay when
you "Christian" and "Jews" kill Muslims because you have good excuses.
It's only bad when they dare to fight back.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Martin Brown
>
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4b230649$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
>>>> >that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
>>>> >or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
>>>> >terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
>>>> >them?
>>>>
>>>> I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
>>>> terrorists.
>>>
>>> Most sane people do. But not innocent people.
>>
>> And who are the guilty ones? Just the Muslims?
>
> Well, I tried to find a news story of some lilly white terrorists, and
> so far Tim McVeigh is the only one. So yes, so far it's only Muslims.
You seem to forget about the US militarised anthrax powder that was sent
to various public figures soon after 9/11 and was eventually traced to
the US biological warfare program. ISTR the only suspect committed
suicide before being taken into custody.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1849920.stm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7536890.stm
Killed about half a dozen people. The FBI didn't seem to try very hard
to find the culprit when it became clear it was an inside job using US
weaponised military material.
I don't suppose you count the IRA as terrorists - even though they have
done such a great job training the FARC in better ways to kill US troops.
In the UK there have been way more IRA terrorist attrocities than
Islamic jihad attacks. The IRA even managed an audacious assassination
attempt against then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
>
> One thing about Islam, though, they seem to rely on a single solution
> for anyone who dares to say something about Islam they don't like:
> death. You write something they don't like? Death. Draw a cartoon?
> Death. Say something? Death. See a pattern here? Why?
They sound a bit like the US Religious Right then.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Twibil
>
>
> It's okay when you "Christian" and "Jews" kill Muslims
> because you have good excuses.
> It's only bad when they dare to fight back.
PHUMP!
(Insane-O-meter explodes.)
sid
>>>>> The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
>>>>> public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what
>>>>> they deserve.
>>Not always true, I don;t think Charles de mendez got what he deserved.
>
> He should not even have been there... he was well outside his visa
> working as an electrician. With the current rules for electricians
> Mendes was criminal in falsifying paperwork and certification quite
> apart from being in the country illegally.
Not exactly justification for being gunned down by the police in a public
place though, is it?
--
sid
RLU 300284
2010
Chris H
s.com>, Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> writes
Not at all that is EXACTLY what happened. 9/11 was the third (of three)
RETALIATION attacks on the US for multiple attacks across the world by
the US on Muslim targets. After 9/11 one of the first words Bush said
was "Crusade"
whisky-dave
"Bowser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote in message
news:0yMVm.152$5N3...@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
I'm guessing because it works, it's about the only point which I think
the islamic belief is correct and our UK one is faulty.
whisky-dave
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:N7r1o$Hez4J...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <hg81gl$q5$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear>
> writes
>>>>>
>>>>> The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
>>>>> public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what
>>>>> they
>>>>> deserve.
>>Not always true, I don;t think Charles de mendez got what he deserved.
>
> He should not even have been there... he was well outside his visa
> working as an electrician.
But they didn;t know this at the time, at the time of the shooting they
thought he was someone else and that could have been anyone.
Anyone at all that is the problem it was only luck they killed someone that
was 'illegal' and the compensation paid reflected that.
> With the current rules for electricians
> Mendes was criminal in falsifying paperwork and certification quite
> apart from being in the country illegally.
But they didn't know that at the time, he could have been a photographer
just travelling on the tube. But then again didn't they have this person
under surveillance, I mean they thought he was a suicide bomber so they
allowed
him to get on the tube train, that's always seemed a bit wierd to me.
And I DON'T blame the policeman that shot him, someone else is to blame
for the targeting the wrong person, and not stopping them from getting on
the underground
in the first place.
I think it's rather a shame we don;t shoot people for ripping off the tax
payer
with false expense acounts, but I doubt we'd get away with that, which is a
pity.
Chris H
da...@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:N7r1o$Hez4J...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <hg81gl$q5$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear>
>> writes
>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>> The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
>>>>>> public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> deserve.
>>>Not always true, I don;t think Charles de mendez got what he deserved.
>> Mendes was criminal in falsifying paperwork and certification quite
>> apart from being in the country illegally.
>
>But they didn't know that at the time, he could have been a photographer
>just travelling on the tube.
True.
> But then again didn't they have this person
>under surveillance,
They did.
>I mean they thought he was a suicide bomber so they
>allowed
>him to get on the tube train, that's always seemed a bit wierd to me.
Due to multiple cock-ups by the officers in charge the armed team were
not at the station. The team that was watching him could not tackle him.
>And I DON'T blame the policeman that shot him,
Agreed. They were running to catch up *a positively identified suicide
bomber in his target zone* They had no options in the position they were
placed in. Any hesitation would have resulted in 30 dead in the
underground train.
> someone else is to blame
>for the targeting the wrong person, and not stopping them from getting on
>the underground
>in the first place.
Agreed. However, having read the Stockwell report, heads should have
rolled. Though I do believe not all the information got it to the
Stockwell report.
>I think it's rather a shame we don;t shoot people for ripping off the tax
>payer
>with false expense acounts, but I doubt we'd get away with that, which is a
>pity.
More to the point I think that a Defence Secretary who is in charge over
the Nimrod incident should *AT LEAST* get Prison... instead they are
trying to prosecute a couple of RAF officers....