Once again, Britain's Stasi are really working hard. Here's a story to
fill you with fear and dread for the future:

"A mother who reprimanded her children at a supermarket was secretly
followed by an off-duty policeman and interrogated by fellow officers
who reported her to social services.

"The 34-year-old, who has had no previous problems with the police,
was horrified when she was visited at home by two uniformed officers
six weeks after the incident.

"They said she had been seen by the off-duty officer who had trailed
the family to their house - a 15-minute walk away - to get their
address.

"During the visit, the officers asked the mother what forms of
discipline she imposed on her 11-year-old son and four-year-old
daughter. 

"When she admitted she occasionally gave them a smack ‘as a last
resort’, they advised her to stick to the alternative methods she
already used, such as withdrawing treats and banning television. 

"She later received a letter from the local council informing her that
the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been put ‘on
record’."

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkout.html
http://tinyurl.com/yc723j8

Did anyone happen to watch the Berlin Wall prog on BBC2 last night?
What is happening here in Britain is remarkably similar, even more so
once vetting and barring really kicks in.

Anyone noticed the huge number of complaints against the TSG? Yet
another symptom of a police state in the making.

MM

MM wrote:

> Anyone noticed the huge number of complaints against the TSG? Yet
> another symptom of a police state in the making.

Alternatively, it could be an orchestrated campaign to make complaints 
against them.  There's no penalty, you see, for making false complaints.

Apparently, less than 0.18% of complaints over the last 4 years were 
substantiated.

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:41:55 +0000, MM wrote:

> Once again, Britain's Stasi are really working hard. Here's a story to
> fill you with fear and dread for the future:
> 
> "A mother who reprimanded her children at a supermarket was secretly
> followed by an off-duty policeman and interrogated by fellow officers who
> reported her to social services.
> 
> "The 34-year-old, who has had no previous problems with the police, was
> horrified when she was visited at home by two uniformed officers six weeks
> after the incident.
> 
> "They said she had been seen by the off-duty officer who had trailed the
> family to their house - a 15-minute walk away - to get their address.
> 
> "During the visit, the officers asked the mother what forms of discipline
> she imposed on her 11-year-old son and four-year-old daughter.
> 
> "When she admitted she occasionally gave them a smack ‘as a last
> resort’, they advised her to stick to the alternative methods she already
> used, such as withdrawing treats and banning television.
> 
> "She later received a letter from the local council informing her that the
> ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been put ‘on record’."
> 
> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkout.html
> http://tinyurl.com/yc723j8
> 
> Did anyone happen to watch the Berlin Wall prog on BBC2 last night? What
> is happening here in Britain is remarkably similar, even more so once
> vetting and barring really kicks in.
> 
> Anyone noticed the huge number of complaints against the TSG? Yet another
> symptom of a police state in the making.
> 
> MM

The stupid so and so's can't see any of it. They would have to feel the
jackboot crushing their noses before they realised not all in the garden
was rosy.

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:41:55 +0000, MM  wrote:

>Once again, Britain's Stasi are really working hard. Here's a story to
>fill you with fear and dread for the future:
>
>"A mother who reprimanded her children at a supermarket was secretly
>followed by an off-duty policeman and interrogated by fellow officers
>who reported her to social services.
>
>"The 34-year-old, who has had no previous problems with the police,
>was horrified when she was visited at home by two uniformed officers
>six weeks after the incident.
>
>"They said she had been seen by the off-duty officer who had trailed
>the family to their house - a 15-minute walk away - to get their
>address.
>
>"During the visit, the officers asked the mother what forms of
>discipline she imposed on her 11-year-old son and four-year-old
>daughter. 
>
>"When she admitted she occasionally gave them a smack ‘as a last
>resort’, they advised her to stick to the alternative methods she
>already used, such as withdrawing treats and banning television. 
>
>"She later received a letter from the local council informing her that
>the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been put ‘on
>record’."

it's a lot easier and safe than dealing with criminals and yobs

police should be paid more

>http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkout.html
>http://tinyurl.com/yc723j8
>
>Did anyone happen to watch the Berlin Wall prog on BBC2 last night?
>What is happening here in Britain is remarkably similar, even more so
>once vetting and barring really kicks in.
>
>Anyone noticed the huge number of complaints against the TSG? Yet
>another symptom of a police state in the making.
>
>MM

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:41:55 +0000, MM  wrote:

>Did anyone happen to watch the Berlin Wall prog on BBC2 last night?
>What is happening here in Britain is remarkably similar, even more so
>once vetting and barring really kicks in.

People have got it completely wrong.

The Berlin wall wasn't pulled down so that freedom could extend
eastwards, it was pulled down so that Communism could extend
westwards.

Svenne

MM wrote:
> Once again, Britain's Stasi are really working hard. Here's a story to
> fill you with fear and dread for the future:
> 
> "A mother who reprimanded her children at a supermarket was secretly
> followed by an off-duty policeman and interrogated by fellow officers
> who reported her to social services.
> 
> "The 34-year-old, who has had no previous problems with the police,
> was horrified when she was visited at home by two uniformed officers
> six weeks after the incident.
> 
> "They said she had been seen by the off-duty officer who had trailed
> the family to their house - a 15-minute walk away - to get their
> address.
> 
> "During the visit, the officers asked the mother what forms of
> discipline she imposed on her 11-year-old son and four-year-old
> daughter. 
> 
> "When she admitted she occasionally gave them a smack ‘as a last
> resort’, they advised her to stick to the alternative methods she
> already used, such as withdrawing treats and banning television. 
> 
> "She later received a letter from the local council informing her that
> the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been put ‘on
> record’."
> 
> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkout.html
> http://tinyurl.com/yc723j8

I note that "She later received a letter from the local council 
informing her that the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been 
put ‘on record’."

What's the betting this sort of information will be used by the 
Independent Safeguarding Authority in their decisions to bar people from 
working with children?

James

-- 
James Hammerton,
http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:51:38 +0000, James Hammerton
 wrote:

>MM wrote:
>> Once again, Britain's Stasi are really working hard. Here's a story to
>> fill you with fear and dread for the future:
>> 
>> "A mother who reprimanded her children at a supermarket was secretly
>> followed by an off-duty policeman and interrogated by fellow officers
>> who reported her to social services.
>> 
>> "The 34-year-old, who has had no previous problems with the police,
>> was horrified when she was visited at home by two uniformed officers
>> six weeks after the incident.
>> 
>> "They said she had been seen by the off-duty officer who had trailed
>> the family to their house - a 15-minute walk away - to get their
>> address.
>> 
>> "During the visit, the officers asked the mother what forms of
>> discipline she imposed on her 11-year-old son and four-year-old
>> daughter. 
>> 
>> "When she admitted she occasionally gave them a smack ‘as a last
>> resort’, they advised her to stick to the alternative methods she
>> already used, such as withdrawing treats and banning television. 
>> 
>> "She later received a letter from the local council informing her that
>> the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been put ‘on
>> record’."
>> 
>> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkout.html
>> http://tinyurl.com/yc723j8
>
>I note that "She later received a letter from the local council 
>informing her that the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been 
>put ‘on record’."
>
>What's the betting this sort of information will be used by the 
>Independent Safeguarding Authority in their decisions to bar people from 
>working with children?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8348938.stm
"Children brought up according to "tough love" principles are more
successful in life, according to a study.

The think tank Demos says a balance of warmth and discipline improved
social skills more than a laissez-faire, authoritarian or disengaged
upbringing.

It says children aged five with "tough love" parents were twice as
likely to show good character capabilities."


socialism fosters failure....


delenda est socialismus

regards



-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:06:05 +0100, abelard 
wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:51:38 +0000, James Hammerton
> wrote:
>
>>MM wrote:
>>> Once again, Britain's Stasi are really working hard. Here's a story to
>>> fill you with fear and dread for the future:
>>> 
>>> "A mother who reprimanded her children at a supermarket was secretly
>>> followed by an off-duty policeman and interrogated by fellow officers
>>> who reported her to social services.
>>> 
>>> "The 34-year-old, who has had no previous problems with the police,
>>> was horrified when she was visited at home by two uniformed officers
>>> six weeks after the incident.
>>> 
>>> "They said she had been seen by the off-duty officer who had trailed
>>> the family to their house - a 15-minute walk away - to get their
>>> address.
>>> 
>>> "During the visit, the officers asked the mother what forms of
>>> discipline she imposed on her 11-year-old son and four-year-old
>>> daughter. 
>>> 
>>> "When she admitted she occasionally gave them a smack ‘as a last
>>> resort’, they advised her to stick to the alternative methods she
>>> already used, such as withdrawing treats and banning television. 
>>> 
>>> "She later received a letter from the local council informing her that
>>> the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been put ‘on
>>> record’."
>>> 
>>> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkout.html
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yc723j8
>>
>>I note that "She later received a letter from the local council 
>>informing her that the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been 
>>put ‘on record’."
>>
>>What's the betting this sort of information will be used by the 
>>Independent Safeguarding Authority in their decisions to bar people from 
>>working with children?

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8348938.stm

>"Children brought up according to "tough love" principles are more
>successful in life, according to a study.

A lot depends on how you define "successful."

Svenne

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:11:52 +0200, Svenne 
wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:06:05 +0100, abelard 
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:51:38 +0000, James Hammerton
>> wrote:
>>
>>>MM wrote:
>>>> Once again, Britain's Stasi are really working hard. Here's a story to
>>>> fill you with fear and dread for the future:
>>>> 
>>>> "A mother who reprimanded her children at a supermarket was secretly
>>>> followed by an off-duty policeman and interrogated by fellow officers
>>>> who reported her to social services.
>>>> 
>>>> "The 34-year-old, who has had no previous problems with the police,
>>>> was horrified when she was visited at home by two uniformed officers
>>>> six weeks after the incident.
>>>> 
>>>> "They said she had been seen by the off-duty officer who had trailed
>>>> the family to their house - a 15-minute walk away - to get their
>>>> address.
>>>> 
>>>> "During the visit, the officers asked the mother what forms of
>>>> discipline she imposed on her 11-year-old son and four-year-old
>>>> daughter. 
>>>> 
>>>> "When she admitted she occasionally gave them a smack ‘as a last
>>>> resort’, they advised her to stick to the alternative methods she
>>>> already used, such as withdrawing treats and banning television. 
>>>> 
>>>> "She later received a letter from the local council informing her that
>>>> the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been put ‘on
>>>> record’."
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkout.html
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yc723j8
>>>
>>>I note that "She later received a letter from the local council 
>>>informing her that the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been 
>>>put ‘on record’."
>>>
>>>What's the betting this sort of information will be used by the 
>>>Independent Safeguarding Authority in their decisions to bar people from 
>>>working with children?
>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8348938.stm
>
>>"Children brought up according to "tough love" principles are more
>>successful in life, according to a study.
>
>A lot depends on how you define "successful."

for simplicity it is normally defined as economic success(adequacy)
    and (reported) happiness

a basic criterion i use is...where are they at 30, not where
    are they at 16 or 21


-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:11:52 +0200, Svenne 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:06:05 +0100, abelard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:51:38 +0000, James Hammerton
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> MM wrote:
>>>>> Once again, Britain's Stasi are really working hard. Here's a story to
>>>>> fill you with fear and dread for the future:
>>>>>
>>>>> "A mother who reprimanded her children at a supermarket was secretly
>>>>> followed by an off-duty policeman and interrogated by fellow officers
>>>>> who reported her to social services.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The 34-year-old, who has had no previous problems with the police,
>>>>> was horrified when she was visited at home by two uniformed officers
>>>>> six weeks after the incident.
>>>>>
>>>>> "They said she had been seen by the off-duty officer who had trailed
>>>>> the family to their house - a 15-minute walk away - to get their
>>>>> address.
>>>>>
>>>>> "During the visit, the officers asked the mother what forms of
>>>>> discipline she imposed on her 11-year-old son and four-year-old
>>>>> daughter. 
>>>>>
>>>>> "When she admitted she occasionally gave them a smack ‘as a last
>>>>> resort’, they advised her to stick to the alternative methods she
>>>>> already used, such as withdrawing treats and banning television. 
>>>>>
>>>>> "She later received a letter from the local council informing her that
>>>>> the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been put ‘on
>>>>> record’."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkout.html
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yc723j8
>>>> I note that "She later received a letter from the local council 
>>>> informing her that the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been 
>>>> put ‘on record’."
>>>>
>>>> What's the betting this sort of information will be used by the 
>>>> Independent Safeguarding Authority in their decisions to bar people from 
>>>> working with children?
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8348938.stm
>>> "Children brought up according to "tough love" principles are more
>>> successful in life, according to a study.
>> A lot depends on how you define "successful."
> 
> for simplicity it is normally defined as economic success(adequacy)
>     and (reported) happiness

Oh great.

Tell us all how, exactly, they measure happiness.

-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:42:56 +0000, William Black
 wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:11:52 +0200, Svenne 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:06:05 +0100, abelard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:51:38 +0000, James Hammerton
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> MM wrote:
>>>>>> Once again, Britain's Stasi are really working hard. Here's a story to
>>>>>> fill you with fear and dread for the future:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A mother who reprimanded her children at a supermarket was secretly
>>>>>> followed by an off-duty policeman and interrogated by fellow officers
>>>>>> who reported her to social services.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The 34-year-old, who has had no previous problems with the police,
>>>>>> was horrified when she was visited at home by two uniformed officers
>>>>>> six weeks after the incident.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "They said she had been seen by the off-duty officer who had trailed
>>>>>> the family to their house - a 15-minute walk away - to get their
>>>>>> address.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "During the visit, the officers asked the mother what forms of
>>>>>> discipline she imposed on her 11-year-old son and four-year-old
>>>>>> daughter. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "When she admitted she occasionally gave them a smack ‘as a last
>>>>>> resort’, they advised her to stick to the alternative methods she
>>>>>> already used, such as withdrawing treats and banning television. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "She later received a letter from the local council informing her that
>>>>>> the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been put ‘on
>>>>>> record’."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkout.html
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yc723j8
>>>>> I note that "She later received a letter from the local council 
>>>>> informing her that the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been 
>>>>> put ‘on record’."
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the betting this sort of information will be used by the 
>>>>> Independent Safeguarding Authority in their decisions to bar people from 
>>>>> working with children?
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8348938.stm
>>>> "Children brought up according to "tough love" principles are more
>>>> successful in life, according to a study.
>>> A lot depends on how you define "successful."
>> 
>> for simplicity it is normally defined as economic success(adequacy)
>>     and (reported) happiness
>
>Oh great.
>
>Tell us all how, exactly, they measure happiness.

as stated above...by report!!

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In message <XjxJm.43543$ep1.8491@newsfe30.ams2>, Norman Wells 
 writes
>MM wrote:
>
>> Anyone noticed the huge number of complaints against the TSG? Yet
>> another symptom of a police state in the making.
>
>Alternatively, it could be an orchestrated campaign to make complaints 
>against them.  There's no penalty, you see, for making false complaints.
>
>Apparently, less than 0.18% of complaints over the last 4 years were 
>substantiated.
>

I was making regular complaints against them twelve years ago, and they 
had a bad reputation then.

Time and time again clients would come in to complain. Time and time 
again, it turned out that the officers complained about were TSG rather 
than regular local cops. Time and time again, the same names were 
identified as the aggressors, and the same officers appeared to be 
either passive or positively trying to reduce tensions.

There was too much in common from too many unconnected stories for me to 
conclude anything other than that what I was hearing was the truth.
-- 
Richard Miller

Norman Wells wrote:
> MM wrote:
>
>> Anyone noticed the huge number of complaints against the TSG? Yet
>> another symptom of a police state in the making.
>
> Alternatively, it could be an orchestrated campaign to make complaints
> against them.  There's no penalty, you see, for making false complaints.
>
> Apparently, less than 0.18% of complaints over the last 4 years were
> substantiated.

Which is entirely consistent with what would be expected from an ineffective 
& slow complaints system which shields criminal behaviour by police 
officers.

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:43:48 +0000, Richard Miller
 wrote:

>In message <XjxJm.43543$ep1.8491@newsfe30.ams2>, Norman Wells 
> writes
>>MM wrote:

>>> Anyone noticed the huge number of complaints against the TSG? Yet
>>> another symptom of a police state in the making.

>>Alternatively, it could be an orchestrated campaign to make complaints 
>>against them.  There's no penalty, you see, for making false complaints.

>>Apparently, less than 0.18% of complaints over the last 4 years were 
>>substantiated.

>I was making regular complaints against them twelve years ago, and they 
>had a bad reputation then.

>Time and time again clients would come in to complain. Time and time 
>again, it turned out that the officers complained about were TSG rather 
>than regular local cops. Time and time again, the same names were 
>identified as the aggressors, and the same officers appeared to be 
>either passive or positively trying to reduce tensions.

>There was too much in common from too many unconnected stories for me to 
>conclude anything other than that what I was hearing was the truth.

Given the plethora of databases and registers that the police state
has come up with perhaps we need an independant "Bent Cop" register.
Perhaps someone should start a wiki (in a country with more respect
for free speach and less repressive libel laws).  If the official
channels can't or won't deal with them it would at least allow us to
identify them.  If as is frequently claimed, the vast majority of
police are honest they will welcome an attempt to keep tabs on the
"bad apples".  Those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear!

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:25:41 +0100, abelard 
wrote:

>>A lot depends on how you define "successful."

>for simplicity it is normally defined as economic success(adequacy)
>    and (reported) happiness

That seems fair enough.

I get the impression that society tends to regard "success" as being
synonymous with "aquisition of wealth" which is absolute nonsense. 

Once the threshold "enough" has been reached then further aquisition
of wealth becomes pointless, rather like an Eskimo collecting snow.

Svenne

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:44:59 +0200, Svenne 
wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:25:41 +0100, abelard 
>wrote:
>
>>>A lot depends on how you define "successful."
>
>>for simplicity it is normally defined as economic success(adequacy)
>>    and (reported) happiness
>
>That seems fair enough.
>
>I get the impression that society tends to regard "success" as being
>synonymous with "aquisition of wealth" which is absolute nonsense. 
>
>Once the threshold "enough" has been reached then further aquisition
>of wealth becomes pointless, rather like an Eskimo collecting snow.

all reasonable
in a study, 'success' would generally be regarded as
    a wide range....some 'middle class' and some who
    have 'made a mark'

such categories are usually not intended as 'commercial'
     but as a crude means of differentiating outcomes from
     inputs...
eg in this case, sane child management vs 'spoiling' or
     the reverse....

we'll probably get more detail when the report is available....
if you get very interested you could also chase the writers
   for best definitions

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In message , MM 
 writes
>Did anyone happen to watch the Berlin Wall prog on BBC2 last night?
>What is happening here in Britain is remarkably similar, even more so
>once vetting and barring really kicks in.

Rubbish - nobody has (yet) been shot whilst trying to leave.

Such hyperbolic exaggerations just make you look silly.

-- 
< Paul >

In message <XjxJm.43543$ep1.8491@newsfe30.ams2>, Norman Wells 
 writes
>MM wrote:
>> Anyone noticed the huge number of complaints against the TSG? Yet
>> another symptom of a police state in the making.
>
>Alternatively, it could be an orchestrated campaign to make complaints 
>against them.  There's no penalty, you see, for making false complaints.

Apart from being bothered by the police for months or even years to come 
- exactly the same penalty for making truthful complaints.

>Apparently, less than 0.18% of complaints over the last 4 years were 
>substantiated.

That was the results of the police investigating the police; had the 
cases gone to court, the results might have been rather different due to 
the lower standard of proof required at civil law.

By the way, what proportion of dibblers do you put in your pies and are 
they certified to be entirely free from Turks?

-- 
< Paul >

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 00:54:59 +0000, "Paul C. Dickie"
 wrote:

>In message , MM 
> writes
>>Did anyone happen to watch the Berlin Wall prog on BBC2 last night?
>>What is happening here in Britain is remarkably similar, even more so
>>once vetting and barring really kicks in.
>
>Rubbish - nobody has (yet) been shot whilst trying to leave.

But people have been stopped

>
>Such hyperbolic exaggerations just make you look silly.

It is quite possible we are facing a future of internal controls where
permission is needed to move from one town to another. The foundations
in law are already in place.

abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:51:38 +0000, James Hammerton
>  wrote:
> 
>> MM wrote:
>>> Once again, Britain's Stasi are really working hard. Here's a story to
>>> fill you with fear and dread for the future:
>>>
>>> "A mother who reprimanded her children at a supermarket was secretly
>>> followed by an off-duty policeman and interrogated by fellow officers
>>> who reported her to social services.
>>>
>>> "The 34-year-old, who has had no previous problems with the police,
>>> was horrified when she was visited at home by two uniformed officers
>>> six weeks after the incident.
>>>
>>> "They said she had been seen by the off-duty officer who had trailed
>>> the family to their house - a 15-minute walk away - to get their
>>> address.
>>>
>>> "During the visit, the officers asked the mother what forms of
>>> discipline she imposed on her 11-year-old son and four-year-old
>>> daughter. 
>>>
>>> "When she admitted she occasionally gave them a smack ‘as a last
>>> resort’, they advised her to stick to the alternative methods she
>>> already used, such as withdrawing treats and banning television. 
>>>
>>> "She later received a letter from the local council informing her that
>>> the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been put ‘on
>>> record’."
>>>
>>> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkout.html
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yc723j8
>> I note that "She later received a letter from the local council 
>> informing her that the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been 
>> put ‘on record’."
>>
>> What's the betting this sort of information will be used by the 
>> Independent Safeguarding Authority in their decisions to bar people from 
>> working with children?
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8348938.stm
> "Children brought up according to "tough love" principles are more
> successful in life, according to a study.
> 
> The think tank Demos says a balance of warmth and discipline improved
> social skills more than a laissez-faire, authoritarian or disengaged
> upbringing.
> 
> It says children aged five with "tough love" parents were twice as
> likely to show good character capabilities."
> 

Doh. Didn't virtually the entire human species already know that?

Paul C. Dickie wrote:
> In message , MM 
>  writes
>> Did anyone happen to watch the Berlin Wall prog on BBC2 last night?
>> What is happening here in Britain is remarkably similar, even more so
>> once vetting and barring really kicks in.
> 
> Rubbish - nobody has (yet) been shot whilst trying to leave.
> 

They have had their passports removed though, and have threatened to do 
it for things like non-payment of child maintenance etc.

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:01:15 +0000, Maria 
wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:51:38 +0000, James Hammerton
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> MM wrote:
>>>> Once again, Britain's Stasi are really working hard. Here's a story to
>>>> fill you with fear and dread for the future:
>>>>
>>>> "A mother who reprimanded her children at a supermarket was secretly
>>>> followed by an off-duty policeman and interrogated by fellow officers
>>>> who reported her to social services.
>>>>
>>>> "The 34-year-old, who has had no previous problems with the police,
>>>> was horrified when she was visited at home by two uniformed officers
>>>> six weeks after the incident.
>>>>
>>>> "They said she had been seen by the off-duty officer who had trailed
>>>> the family to their house - a 15-minute walk away - to get their
>>>> address.
>>>>
>>>> "During the visit, the officers asked the mother what forms of
>>>> discipline she imposed on her 11-year-old son and four-year-old
>>>> daughter. 
>>>>
>>>> "When she admitted she occasionally gave them a smack ‘as a last
>>>> resort’, they advised her to stick to the alternative methods she
>>>> already used, such as withdrawing treats and banning television. 
>>>>
>>>> "She later received a letter from the local council informing her that
>>>> the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been put ‘on
>>>> record’."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkout.html
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yc723j8
>>> I note that "She later received a letter from the local council 
>>> informing her that the ‘chastisement’ of her children in public had been 
>>> put ‘on record’."
>>>
>>> What's the betting this sort of information will be used by the 
>>> Independent Safeguarding Authority in their decisions to bar people from 
>>> working with children?
>> 
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8348938.stm
>> "Children brought up according to "tough love" principles are more
>> successful in life, according to a study.
>> 
>> The think tank Demos says a balance of warmth and discipline improved
>> social skills more than a laissez-faire, authoritarian or disengaged
>> upbringing.
>> 
>> It says children aged five with "tough love" parents were twice as
>> likely to show good character capabilities."

>Doh. Didn't virtually the entire human species already know that?

you might have hoped so...
but then people get theories!!

regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul C. Dickie  posted
>In message , MM 
> writes
>>Did anyone happen to watch the Berlin Wall prog on BBC2 last night?
>>What is happening here in Britain is remarkably similar, even more so
>>once vetting and barring really kicks in.
>
>Rubbish - nobody has (yet) been shot whilst trying to leave.

Bloke got shot while trying to leave Stockwell.

>Such hyperbolic exaggerations just make you look silly.

You can have your passport confiscated purely on uncorroborated police 
allegations. If you then try to leave Britain, you'll be arrested. If 
you then resist arrest where there are armed police officers, such as 
Heathrow or the Tunnel, you will quite probably be shot.

It's still an exaggeration, but only a slight one.

-- 
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.

Big Les Wade wrote:
> Paul C. Dickie  posted
>> In message , MM 
>>  writes
>>> Did anyone happen to watch the Berlin Wall prog on BBC2 last night?
>>> What is happening here in Britain is remarkably similar, even more so
>>> once vetting and barring really kicks in.
>>
>> Rubbish - nobody has (yet) been shot whilst trying to leave.
> 
> Bloke got shot while trying to leave Stockwell.

Bloke got shot trying to leave Hackney eh kev?

Big Les Wade wrote:
> Paul C. Dickie  posted
>> In message , MM 
>>  writes
>>> Did anyone happen to watch the Berlin Wall prog on BBC2 last night?
>>> What is happening here in Britain is remarkably similar, even more so
>>> once vetting and barring really kicks in.
>>
>> Rubbish - nobody has (yet) been shot whilst trying to leave.
> 
> Bloke got shot while trying to leave Stockwell.
> 
>> Such hyperbolic exaggerations just make you look silly.
> 
> You can have your passport confiscated purely on uncorroborated police 
> allegations. If you then try to leave Britain, you'll be arrested. If 
> you then resist arrest where there are armed police officers, such as 
> Heathrow or the Tunnel, you will quite probably be shot.
> 
> It's still an exaggeration, but only a slight one.
> 

Well let us all know when they start stacking the bodies up at Heathrow.

Indeed,  let us all know when cops start getting people's passports 
pulled...


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Nov 9, 9:24 am, AlanG  wrote:
>
> It is quite possible we are facing a future of internal controls where
> permission is needed to move from one town to another. The foundations
> in law are already in place.

Wasnt something like that introduced for the Labour Party Conference?

My memory's hazy but it was definitely something to do with ordinary
citizens going about their law-abiding business........

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:23:41 +0000, William Black
 wrote:

>Big Les Wade wrote:
>> Paul C. Dickie  posted
>>> In message , MM 
>>>  writes
>>>> Did anyone happen to watch the Berlin Wall prog on BBC2 last night?
>>>> What is happening here in Britain is remarkably similar, even more so
>>>> once vetting and barring really kicks in.
>>>
>>> Rubbish - nobody has (yet) been shot whilst trying to leave.
>> 
>> Bloke got shot while trying to leave Stockwell.
>> 
>>> Such hyperbolic exaggerations just make you look silly.
>> 
>> You can have your passport confiscated purely on uncorroborated police 
>> allegations. If you then try to leave Britain, you'll be arrested. If 
>> you then resist arrest where there are armed police officers, such as 
>> Heathrow or the Tunnel, you will quite probably be shot.
>> 
>> It's still an exaggeration, but only a slight one.
>> 
>
>Well let us all know when they start stacking the bodies up at Heathrow.
>
>Indeed,  let us all know when cops start getting people's passports 
>pulled...

The latter is already happening and has been for a number of years
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/bills/football/index.htm

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:31:49 -0800 (PST), Gary Baldi
 wrote:

>On Nov 9, 9:24 am, AlanG  wrote:
>>
>> It is quite possible we are facing a future of internal controls where
>> permission is needed to move from one town to another. The foundations
>> in law are already in place.
>
>Wasnt something like that introduced for the Labour Party Conference?

Football disorder act?  Start the experiment with those nobody cares
about then extend it to the rest of us. The tories did it with the
poll tax in scotland. 

>
>My memory's hazy but it was definitely something to do with ordinary
>citizens going about their law-abiding business........

That was plod overreaching their powers. Unfortunately access to law
to challenge the stasi bastards requires money

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:54:33 +0000, AlanG  wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:23:41 +0000, William Black
> wrote:

>>Indeed,  let us all know when cops start getting people's passports 
>>pulled...
>
>The latter is already happening and has been for a number of years
>http://www.magnacartaplus.org/bills/football/index.htm

That contained a very interesting snippet, from a Lord debating the bill:

"Sometimes the authorities stamp a passport in such a way as to make it
ineligible for admission to the country where a match is to take place. That is
something that the Government, in this case, have decided not to do."

Excuse me, how on earth can one government affect the laws of another country in
the way the Lord seems to suggest? A government can stamp whatever they like in
the passports of their citizens; they can't require any other country to take
the blindest bit of notice of such a stamp.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:45:12 -0500, Mike Ross 
wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:54:33 +0000, AlanG  wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:23:41 +0000, William Black
>> wrote:
>
>>>Indeed,  let us all know when cops start getting people's passports 
>>>pulled...
>>
>>The latter is already happening and has been for a number of years
>>http://www.magnacartaplus.org/bills/football/index.htm
>
>That contained a very interesting snippet, from a Lord debating the bill:
>
>"Sometimes the authorities stamp a passport in such a way as to make it
>ineligible for admission to the country where a match is to take place. That is
>something that the Government, in this case, have decided not to do."
>
>Excuse me, how on earth can one government affect the laws of another country in
>the way the Lord seems to suggest? A government can stamp whatever they like in
>the passports of their citizens; they can't require any other country to take
>the blindest bit of notice of such a stamp.

the life of the petty bureaucrat revolves around
    their power to say 'no'....
very few such people will pass by such an opportunity

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AlanG wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:26:07 +0000, William Black
>  wrote:
> 
>> AlanG wrote:
>>
>>> But you didn't need a passport or government permission to leave this
>>> country until this year. OTOH the state has taken upon itself the
>>> power to stop people leaving since 2000
>> Crossing a border without one is a bit of a problem.
> 
> That's other countries
>> I imagine you could slip over the Irish border, but you don't actually 
>> need a passport for that anyway.
>>
>> Going anywhere else is a bit of a problem...
> 
> But you didn't need permission from the state to do it

A 'passport' was originally a letter allowing you to pass through a port.

Once upon a time nobody could go abroad without specific individual 
government permission.

The current situation is relatively recent.

As late as the end of the nineteenth century British subjects needed 
some sort of formal permission to travel abroad,  even within the empire.


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Nov 11, 9:43 am, AlanG  wrote:

> >I imagine you could slip over the Irish border, but you don't actually
> >need a passport for that anyway.
>
> >Going anywhere else is a bit of a problem...
>
> But you didn't need permission from the state to do it

You didn't need the permission of the state to *leave this country*!

Try getting *into* other states. That's why carriers insist on a valid
passport. They don't want the trouble of carrying you back.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:25:11 +0000, Big Les Wade 
wrote:

>and my favourite, this gem from the Observer of 4 June 2004:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/footballviolence/article/0,,1790050,00.html
>"Hundreds of suspected football hooligans are free to go to the World 
>Cup after deliberately steering clear of trouble at recent matches so as 
>not to risk being banned from travelling to Germany, police say.

That is indeed a big loophole that must be plugged.  There are
literally *millions* of people who escape prosecution by cunningly
failing to break the law.  These people are all allowed to roam our
towns and cities relatively unhampered and unchecked.  Some of them
even interact with our children!

-- 
Cynic

Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Nov 11, 9:43 am, AlanG  wrote:
> 
>>> I imagine you could slip over the Irish border, but you don't actually
>>> need a passport for that anyway.
>>> Going anywhere else is a bit of a problem...
>> But you didn't need permission from the state to do it
> 
> You didn't need the permission of the state to *leave this country*!

 From this month you will.

The immigration people will be checking documents at the point of exit 
from the UK.

-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Cynic  posted
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:23:31 +0000, William Black
> wrote:
>
>>> I pointed you to a comment on the legislation that permits the state
>>> to stop someone leaving the country. They don't have to be suspected
>>> of committing a crime or even to have committed a crime for their
>>> passports to be withdrawn as you would have found if you had bothered
>>> to read.
>>
>>It hasn't happened yet.
>
>http://www.sunderlandecho.com/728/Soccer-thugs-net-World-Cup.344276.jp
>

also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3457325.stm

and my favourite, this gem from the Observer of 4 June 2004:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/footballviolence/article/0,,1790050,00.html
"Hundreds of suspected football hooligans are free to go to the World 
Cup after deliberately steering clear of trouble at recent matches so as 
not to risk being banned from travelling to Germany, police say. 
Specialist anti-hooligan officers fear some of the known gang members 
who have been 'keeping their noses clean' may cause problems at or 
around England's games at the tournament, which starts on Friday. [snip] 
Police forces have not achieved their original target of giving 4,000 
hooligans banning orders before the event begins. As a result, officers 
have increasingly been asking the courts to impose bail conditions 
equivalent to a banning order on fans arrested recently so that suspects 
cannot 'play the system' by delaying their trial until after the World 
Cup. Scores of troublemakers cannot reach Germany because of such 
restrictions. [snip]"


-- 
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:26:07 +0000, William Black
 wrote:

>AlanG wrote:
>
>> But you didn't need a passport or government permission to leave this
>> country until this year. OTOH the state has taken upon itself the
>> power to stop people leaving since 2000
>
>Crossing a border without one is a bit of a problem.

That's other countries
>
>I imagine you could slip over the Irish border, but you don't actually 
>need a passport for that anyway.
>
>Going anywhere else is a bit of a problem...

But you didn't need permission from the state to do it

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:36:08 +0000, William Black
 wrote:

>> http://www.sunderlandecho.com/728/Soccer-thugs-net-World-Cup.344276.jp

>Interesting.

>Never met this before.

>I'll be honest,  it sounds initially draconian,  but I'm having a real 
>problem trying to find fault with the decision not to let these people 
>travel abroad.

What, exactly is the reason why they should *not* be free to go where
they want?  Is it because the police or the media calls them
"hooligans"?

The very first problem in my mind is that many of those people have
never stood trial or been convicted of an offence in *this* country,
yet someone has decided after looking into a crystal ball that their
freedom must be severely curtailed because of what they *might* do
elsewhere.

And what do you do when someone decides that it is too dangerous to
let *you* leave the country?  Or the county.  Or the town.  Or your
house.

-- 
Cynic

Big Les Wade wrote:
> William Black  posted
>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>> William Black  posted
>>>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>>>>  You can have your passport confiscated purely on uncorroborated 
>>>>> police  allegations. If you then try to leave Britain, you'll be 
>>>>> arrested. If  you then resist arrest where there are armed police 
>>>>> officers, such as  Heathrow or the Tunnel, you will quite probably 
>>>>> be  shot.
>>>>>  It's still an exaggeration, but only a slight one.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well let us all know when they start stacking the bodies up at 
>>>> Heathrow.
>>>  They never stacked up bodies in East Berlin, it was always only the 
>>> odd  one. So you've chosen the wrong criterion there.
>>
>> Well let me know when they shoot someone because they tried to get on 
>> an aircraft without a passport...
> 
> They wouldn't have done that in East Berlin either. They'd have arrested 
> him. It's only if he resisted arrest that they'd have considered 
> shooting him. Just as they might here; he might have a bomb you know.

Well let me know what it happens...

>>>> Indeed,  let us all know when cops start getting people's passports 
>>>> pulled...
>>>  Read and learn.
>>
>> I'd love to.
>>
>> Please point me in the right direction.
>>
>> And I'm not interested in reading about people suspected of a serious 
>> crime being asked not to leave the country.  That's not new...
> 
> As the PP pointed out, the practice of confiscating the passports of 
> people named by the police has been going on for some years. I don't 
> really care whether that counts as "new" to you, it's the fact that it 
> is now happening that is important.

And who,  exactly,  is it happening to?

> Incidentally, did you think that (for example) the Soviets prevented 
> people like Solzhenitsyn travelling,  they gave as their reason "because 
> he has unacceptable political views"? No, they didn't. They always said 
> they were suspected of serious crimes.

So you think that the current government is comparable to the late and 
unlamented Soviet Empire?

Tin-foil hat time...



-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

Cynic wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:34:12 +0000, William Black
>  wrote:
> 
>> And I'm not interested in reading about people suspected of a serious 
>> crime being asked not to leave the country.  That's not new...
> 
> How about people who the police think might commit a crime in the
> future, but have either not yet been convicted of any crime, or have
> been convicted of a crime and served the punishment?
> 

Got some names?


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:23:31 +0000, William Black
 wrote:

>AlanG wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:34:12 +0000, William Black
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>>> William Black  posted
>>>>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>>>>>  You can have your passport confiscated purely on uncorroborated 
>>>>>> police  allegations. If you then try to leave Britain, you'll be 
>>>>>> arrested. If  you then resist arrest where there are armed police 
>>>>>> officers, such as  Heathrow or the Tunnel, you will quite probably be 
>>>>>> shot.
>>>>>>  It's still an exaggeration, but only a slight one.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well let us all know when they start stacking the bodies up at Heathrow.
>>>> They never stacked up bodies in East Berlin, it was always only the odd 
>>>> one. So you've chosen the wrong criterion there.
>>> Well let me know when they shoot someone because they tried to get on an 
>>> aircraft without a passport...
>>>
>>>>> Indeed,  let us all know when cops start getting people's passports 
>>>>> pulled...
>>>> Read and learn.
>>>>
>>> I'd love to.
>>>
>>> Please point me in the right direction.
>>>
>>> And I'm not interested in reading about people suspected of a serious 
>>> crime being asked not to leave the country.  That's not new...
>> 
>> I pointed you to a comment on the legislation that permits the state
>> to stop someone leaving the country. They don't have to be suspected
>> of committing a crime or even to have committed a crime for their
>> passports to be withdrawn as you would have found if you had bothered
>> to read. 
>
>It hasn't happened yet.

It has happened to many people
>
>Anyway, the legislation already exists.
>
>Read your passport.
>
>It is and it remains the property of the government, and they can 
>withdraw it at any time without notice or any reason.

But you didn't need a passport or government permission to leave this
country until this year. OTOH the state has taken upon itself the
power to stop people leaving since 2000

AlanG wrote:

> But you didn't need a passport or government permission to leave this
> country until this year. OTOH the state has taken upon itself the
> power to stop people leaving since 2000

Crossing a border without one is a bit of a problem.

I imagine you could slip over the Irish border, but you don't actually 
need a passport for that anyway.

Going anywhere else is a bit of a problem...

-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:25:31 +0000, William Black
 wrote:

>Cynic wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:34:12 +0000, William Black
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> And I'm not interested in reading about people suspected of a serious 
>>> crime being asked not to leave the country.  That's not new...
>> 
>> How about people who the police think might commit a crime in the
>> future, but have either not yet been convicted of any crime, or have
>> been convicted of a crime and served the punishment?
>> 
>
>Got some names?

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/728/Soccer-thugs-net-World-Cup.344276.jp

-- 
Cynic

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:23:31 +0000, William Black
 wrote:

>> I pointed you to a comment on the legislation that permits the state
>> to stop someone leaving the country. They don't have to be suspected
>> of committing a crime or even to have committed a crime for their
>> passports to be withdrawn as you would have found if you had bothered
>> to read. 
>
>It hasn't happened yet.

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/728/Soccer-thugs-net-World-Cup.344276.jp

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:25:31 +0000, William Black
>  wrote:
> 
>> Cynic wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:34:12 +0000, William Black
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I'm not interested in reading about people suspected of a serious 
>>>> crime being asked not to leave the country.  That's not new...
>>> How about people who the police think might commit a crime in the
>>> future, but have either not yet been convicted of any crime, or have
>>> been convicted of a crime and served the punishment?
>>>
>> Got some names?
> 
> http://www.sunderlandecho.com/728/Soccer-thugs-net-World-Cup.344276.jp
> 

Interesting.

Never met this before.

I'll be honest,  it sounds initially draconian,  but I'm having a real 
problem trying to find fault with the decision not to let these people 
travel abroad.


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

AlanG wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:34:12 +0000, William Black
>  wrote:
> 
>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>> William Black  posted
>>>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>>>>  You can have your passport confiscated purely on uncorroborated 
>>>>> police  allegations. If you then try to leave Britain, you'll be 
>>>>> arrested. If  you then resist arrest where there are armed police 
>>>>> officers, such as  Heathrow or the Tunnel, you will quite probably be 
>>>>> shot.
>>>>>  It's still an exaggeration, but only a slight one.
>>>>>
>>>> Well let us all know when they start stacking the bodies up at Heathrow.
>>> They never stacked up bodies in East Berlin, it was always only the odd 
>>> one. So you've chosen the wrong criterion there.
>> Well let me know when they shoot someone because they tried to get on an 
>> aircraft without a passport...
>>
>>>> Indeed,  let us all know when cops start getting people's passports 
>>>> pulled...
>>> Read and learn.
>>>
>> I'd love to.
>>
>> Please point me in the right direction.
>>
>> And I'm not interested in reading about people suspected of a serious 
>> crime being asked not to leave the country.  That's not new...
> 
> I pointed you to a comment on the legislation that permits the state
> to stop someone leaving the country. They don't have to be suspected
> of committing a crime or even to have committed a crime for their
> passports to be withdrawn as you would have found if you had bothered
> to read. 

It hasn't happened yet.

Anyway, the legislation already exists.

Read your passport.

It is and it remains the property of the government, and they can 
withdraw it at any time without notice or any reason.


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

William Black  posted
>Big Les Wade wrote:
>>  You can have your passport confiscated purely on uncorroborated 
>>police  allegations. If you then try to leave Britain, you'll be 
>>arrested. If  you then resist arrest where there are armed police 
>>officers, such as  Heathrow or the Tunnel, you will quite probably be shot.
>>  It's still an exaggeration, but only a slight one.
>>
>
>Well let us all know when they start stacking the bodies up at Heathrow.

They never stacked up bodies in East Berlin, it was always only the odd 
one. So you've chosen the wrong criterion there.

>Indeed,  let us all know when cops start getting people's passports 
>pulled...

Read and learn.

-- 
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.

Big Les Wade wrote:
> William Black  posted
>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>>  You can have your passport confiscated purely on uncorroborated 
>>> police  allegations. If you then try to leave Britain, you'll be 
>>> arrested. If  you then resist arrest where there are armed police 
>>> officers, such as  Heathrow or the Tunnel, you will quite probably be 
>>> shot.
>>>  It's still an exaggeration, but only a slight one.
>>>
>>
>> Well let us all know when they start stacking the bodies up at Heathrow.
> 
> They never stacked up bodies in East Berlin, it was always only the odd 
> one. So you've chosen the wrong criterion there.

Well let me know when they shoot someone because they tried to get on an 
aircraft without a passport...

>> Indeed,  let us all know when cops start getting people's passports 
>> pulled...
> 
> Read and learn.
> 

I'd love to.

Please point me in the right direction.

And I'm not interested in reading about people suspected of a serious 
crime being asked not to leave the country.  That's not new...



-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

William Black  posted
>Big Les Wade wrote:
>> William Black  posted
>>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>>>  You can have your passport confiscated purely on uncorroborated 
>>>>police  allegations. If you then try to leave Britain, you'll be 
>>>>arrested. If  you then resist arrest where there are armed police 
>>>>officers, such as  Heathrow or the Tunnel, you will quite probably be  shot.
>>>>  It's still an exaggeration, but only a slight one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well let us all know when they start stacking the bodies up at Heathrow.
>>  They never stacked up bodies in East Berlin, it was always only the 
>>odd  one. So you've chosen the wrong criterion there.
>
>Well let me know when they shoot someone because they tried to get on 
>an aircraft without a passport...

They wouldn't have done that in East Berlin either. They'd have arrested 
him. It's only if he resisted arrest that they'd have considered 
shooting him. Just as they might here; he might have a bomb you know.

>>> Indeed,  let us all know when cops start getting people's passports 
>>>pulled...
>>  Read and learn.
>
>I'd love to.
>
>Please point me in the right direction.
>
>And I'm not interested in reading about people suspected of a serious 
>crime being asked not to leave the country.  That's not new...

As the PP pointed out, the practice of confiscating the passports of 
people named by the police has been going on for some years. I don't 
really care whether that counts as "new" to you, it's the fact that it 
is now happening that is important.

Incidentally, did you think that (for example) the Soviets prevented 
people like Solzhenitsyn travelling,  they gave as their reason "because 
he has unacceptable political views"? No, they didn't. They always said 
they were suspected of serious crimes.

-- 
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:34:12 +0000, William Black
 wrote:

>And I'm not interested in reading about people suspected of a serious 
>crime being asked not to leave the country.  That's not new...

How about people who the police think might commit a crime in the
future, but have either not yet been convicted of any crime, or have
been convicted of a crime and served the punishment?

-- 
Cynic

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:34:12 +0000, William Black
 wrote:

>Big Les Wade wrote:
>> William Black  posted
>>> Big Les Wade wrote:
>>>>  You can have your passport confiscated purely on uncorroborated 
>>>> police  allegations. If you then try to leave Britain, you'll be 
>>>> arrested. If  you then resist arrest where there are armed police 
>>>> officers, such as  Heathrow or the Tunnel, you will quite probably be 
>>>> shot.
>>>>  It's still an exaggeration, but only a slight one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well let us all know when they start stacking the bodies up at Heathrow.
>> 
>> They never stacked up bodies in East Berlin, it was always only the odd 
>> one. So you've chosen the wrong criterion there.
>
>Well let me know when they shoot someone because they tried to get on an 
>aircraft without a passport...
>
>>> Indeed,  let us all know when cops start getting people's passports 
>>> pulled...
>> 
>> Read and learn.
>> 
>
>I'd love to.
>
>Please point me in the right direction.
>
>And I'm not interested in reading about people suspected of a serious 
>crime being asked not to leave the country.  That's not new...

I pointed you to a comment on the legislation that permits the state
to stop someone leaving the country. They don't have to be suspected
of committing a crime or even to have committed a crime for their
passports to be withdrawn as you would have found if you had bothered
to read.