Lets settle this "UK is a Police State" rubbish, right now..

Nice thread Stu...

I've been to London twice the last 3 months and actually I'm moving there for atleast a year coming the 1st of August.

Ofcourse I've heard about all the cameras, and here in Denmark we get those crime shows where they sometimes show footage from them.
But I gotta be honest, I never really thought about them when being over there... heck I even pissed in an alley drunk one night and wasn't arrested or cited for that one

I like the idea that no UK cop walks around with guns. Everyone can make bad judgements in a stressful situation, but in countries where the police are fitted with guns there's always the posiblity that someone gets killed... you know, cops has guns, criminals don't wanna die either so ofcourse they have guns to "defend" themselves.
Cops without guns don't inspire the further use of guns. And to me a gunless cop to a small degree signifies a demand of greater rational thought rather than brute force. That I respect...

In Denmark the cops nowadays are all backpadding buddies with guns... I hate them.

So in other words from personal experience and even from the mind numbing tv I've seen before going there, I'll be coming to London with peace in my mind. If you don't have anything to hide nothing will probably happen to you... atleast that's my gutfeeling about the UK.

Cheers

I think this thread has great potential for getting hijacked into a "UK vs US, which is the more fantastical country?" debate. As long as it's kept on the lines of discussing whether or not the UK is a police state, we should be good to go.

But having said that...

From what I can remember about the foundations of the United States, the constitution was written using the system that the authors knew: the United Kingdom's, what with them fleeing from there. I think this could be, if I'm right, a reason why the US has a codified document defining its government and a codified Bill of Rights, yet the UK does not. If you like, it can be imagined as a snapshot of the United Kingdom as it stood then, the difference being that the subject of the photo didn't have a codified document itself, but was spread around amidst the legislation.

Good day,

While I appreciate your staunch stand on this issue I have a bit of information to share with this thread.

I will agree with you that western countires are not perfect definitions of "police states" but this link should give you something to think about. Considering the vast numbers of C.C. cameras in G.B. a citizan of London is some times photographed or taped up to 300 times in one day.

Thanks again for a decent topic

ctv.ca

Your own Police are violent and are "Law Enforcers". Our Police are there to "keep the peace". It is actually rather hard to get arrested in the UK and you have to be doing something rather serious to warrant it.

Yes the Motto for our police has changed from "To Protect and to Serve"
to " Enforce the Law" which is why I vacated the police business.

I wouldnt say that our Police are violent its been my experince if you deal with them in a respectful manner most of them are pretty nice guys or gals.

In the US response time are long from the initial 911 call unless you get lucky and an Officer is nearby, hence gun rights and the ability to defend yourself become important.

If you get view of the Police in America from TV show you are getting a skewed view of things. Take the show "Cops" for instance , the crew goes with the officer for several days and what you see in 30 minutes is probably the worst of those several days.

Many Police Officers in the US have College Degrees in Criminal Justice so they are not for the most part uneducated tough guys.

I do find the Militarization of the Police (armored cars , assault rifles and the like) a bit disconcerting however I realize they have to outgun the criminals.

The proliferation of Private Security Companies is more disturbing These PSCs in many cases hire those who cant become Police Officers because they cant pass the mental evaluation or they cant pass a lie detector test, then while working for the PSC they think they are Police Officers and they have a poor understanding of the law, and the limits on thier authority.

I have seen many petty criminals who may have gotten just a citation for marijuana possession for example curse kick spit and otherwise abuse the Police Officer who doesnt want to take them jail, they earn themselves the trip.

I dont feel I am loosing any rights in this country in relation to the Police.

If I get pulled over for speeding for example I am gonna turn on my Hazard lights and roll down my windows if its night time I am going to turn on my interior lights. when he gets to the vehicle I am gonna hand him my license, my insurance card, my registration, and if I am carrying concealed my firearms permit. I will be polite and answer questions with yes or no and if asked where I am going I will say home or to the store wether thats true or not only I know not really his business where I am going but they usually ask anyway.

At that point I will either get a ticket ot I wont depending my violation, I havent had a ticket since 1995 even though I probably should have, politeness goes a long way.

The only time I have ever had a Police Officer order me to do anything was when they were chasing a suspect and I was told to go back inside.
I can go back inside while they take down a criminal nutter, I dont need to be involved with that situation, and the Police dont need some knucklehead trying to assert his/her rights in a potential violent situation.

Truly if you want to get along in the world " Be Polite " "Keep your Big Mouth Shut" and "Mind your own Business" goes a long way.









[edit on 7/15/2007 by DarkStormCrow]

[edit on 7/15/2007 by DarkStormCrow]

Examples of Police states in Modern Times

Nazi Germany
Iran under the Shah
Soviet Union
East Germany
Romania under Communism
Iraq under Saddam
Saudi Arabia
South Afrika under Apartied
Cuba

The UK isnt even close to these examples and neither is the US.

Some have mention that the UK government could take away thier citizens rights at a whim I dont see this ever being possible I dont think thier Police would go for it nor would thier Military, and if it were to attempted I think you could kiss the Monarchy goodbye.

posted by Arcticnull
Good day,

While I appreciate your staunch stand on this issue I have a bit of information to share with this thread.

I will agree with you that western countires are not perfect definitions of "police states" but this link should give you something to think about. Considering the vast numbers of C.C. cameras in G.B. a citizan of London is some times photographed or taped up to 300 times in one day.

Thanks again for a decent topic

ctv.ca

Thankyou

As for your link, those camera's are not going to be given to bobbies on the beat, but rather police involved in specific operations. Besides, it gives added protection to police and the public alike. If a Policeman is wearing one of those, the chances of him stitching you up with a false accusation are pretty null.

DarkStormCrow, thankyou for your insight.

Granted, we probably get a skewed impression of US Police via the media, but I'll say this; I'd rather have a Cop come up to me without a gun, than one with. The potential for mistakes is there. With a gun, that mistake tends to be permanent.

posted by DarkStormCrow
Truly if you want to get along in the world " Be Polite " "Keep your Big Mouth Shut" and "Mind your own Business" goes a long way.

Indeed. I've been nicked before, but was perfectly civil and polite. I ended up being treated very well, up to the point where I was given freedom to roam in and out of my cell to use the toilet or go for a smoke. A Policeman even joined me for a fag at one point!

I even got a MacDonalds

posted by DarkStormCrow
Some have mention that the UK government could take away thier citizens rights at a whim I dont see this ever being possible I dont think thier Police would go for it nor would thier Military, and if it were to attempted I think you could kiss the Monarchy goodbye.

Only in a State of Emergency, but that could be declared at any time for "reasons of national expediency", whatever that means.

It also gives the Government the power to remove the Monarchy themselves, without an Act of Parliament.

The State of emergency needs to re-applied for, via Parliament, every 30 days though, so we have some protection.

But your right, the Police wouldn't enforce any draconian laws for any longer than absolutely necessary, the Military are very pro-Monarchy and also, at the end of the day, they're all human with families too.

Whilst humanity has the ability for great evil, I believe it has a greater capacity to do the right thing, more often than not.

What annoys me, more than anything, about this whole subject is the fact that people who have never set foot in the UK, and think the whole place revolves around London, will come into threads, and confidenty tell us - and quote internet links, and google videos etc - that the UK is a Police state.

And then, when the British posters come on and say "no, its not" they start to argue with us.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but who has the clearer perspective on it? Someone who lives in the country or someone who doesn't?

There are no government backed death squads in the UK.
Nobody gets dragged away for political correction.
There are no gulags or "correction camps" for government dissenters.
We do not need permission to travel.
There are no checkpoints on roads.
The voting system is carried out at local levels.
I am free to go out and do anything I choose to do, within the bounds of the law, and in some cases outside it as it is inconvinient for the police to deal with it.
The police force in the UK is not routinely armed.
If I am charged with an offence it has to be specific, and accurately identified, and the evidence has to be fully correct and corroborated by multiple sources.
Our legal system has evolved on a pecedental basis since the Magna Carter was signed in 1215.
Hell, I can even cross a road anywhere in the country, at any point I choose and not get arrested/ticketed for it!

Does that sound like a police state?

Really other than the firearms issue the US and UK are very similar.

Most of US law is based on English Common Law.

Originally posted by stumason
What you may not know is that the UK has on the statute books Laws that would allow the Government to swiftly and easily implement a state that would make Stalin proud, yet they do not. This very thing shows that the politicians, whilst being a little corrupt and power hungry, don't actually want us to be a "police state".

I think you mean't to say "yet theyhave not".

And of course they don't want to go that way, its far easier to control the masses through manipulation of the media.

The majority of the populous are more than content to allow injustice to occur as long as it does not impede their next ringtone or Prada handbag purchase.

....But the way your painting it with your loaded statement implies that it is common to be shot dead by Police for no reason.

Not at all, I just can't ignore injustice and allow it to fade into the background, where most people are quite happy to do so.

I can think of 2 occasions in thew past decade, the above being one.

I can think of 3 off the top of my head, but this is not just about the innocent being shot, it is the "above the law" policy that follows these incidents that truly concerns me.

Now, how many occur in countries where the Police are routinely armed? Answer that, then bitch about the Brazilian.

I think we should stick to the UK instead of going on a global comparison, I'm more than aware of the injustice that occurs on a daily basis throughout the world.

And I did quote his name so we don't really need to refer to him as "the Brazilian"

You know what would be a good idea, is to engage your grey matter and read beyond the headline.

Ah, insults so soon in the discussion...

You honestly think that these poor sods will just be told "sorry for shooting you" and left at that? They'll not only get an official apology, but a nice hearty payout to boot.

Ah yes, the family can now buy a bigger tombstone and feel happy that justice has been served.

Now, tell me exactly when did the Nazi's apologise to Jews they didn't mean to kill and pay them compensation? That, my friend, is a Police State. Not the overblown headline you've cherry picked there.

That was a couple of steps beyond a "police state", that was genocide, it wasn't a "police state" for those that went along with it.

It seems that you are willing to allow a few innocents to become victims as long as it does not upset the status quo, lets not forget the numerous cases of those who have died in police custody and maybe we should not just concentrate on those that die, but concentrate on the abuse of power.

I know someone who has never commited a crime, that is monitored 24 hours a day by the paedo police(paedo is my word for police). This geezer did nothing in his life for these people to wreck it, it was just that they could do it. It turns out he was the victim in all the stuff done to him, but the police still hound him.

Sounds like a police state to me.

[edit on 7/15/2007 by andy1033]

You can not label a society an entire society a Police State over several unfortunate and tragic incidents.
Do Police Officers make mistakes , yes of course they do they are humans and they also live with the consequences of those mistake just like any other humans.
I seriously doubt that Police Officers are dancing with glee at having taken an innocent life many cannot cope even when they take a life when thier lives are in danger.
If you think differently you have never had to take a life.

The Nazi Police State was to ensure that everybody did as they were told - or paid the price. The Nazi Police were controlled by Heinrich Himmler and his feared secret police - the Gestapo - did as it pleased in Nazi Germany. Children’s loyalty could be developed with a policy of indoctrination via education and the Hitler Youth movement. Time and planning spent in these areas would bring a suitable reward for Hitler.

Adults were a different proposition. Some adults clearly supported Hitler - as the March 1933 election showed. But the same election clearly showed that a substantial number of Germans did not support Hitler and the Nazis. These people were likely to be a constant thorn for Hitler unless they were dealt with. For these people, the Nazis developed a policy of intimidation. Fear became a by-word for those who did not support Hitler. The wrong comment overheard by a Nazi official could have very serious consequences.

Hitler’s police state worked on the rule that if you said nothing, no harm, could come to you. If you had doubts about the way the country was going, you kept them to yourself - or paid the price. As nearly 17 million people had not voted for either the Nazis or the Nationalist in March 1933, a large and visible police force was required to keep this sizeable group under observation and control.

In Nazi Germany the police were allowed to arrest people on suspicion that they were about to do wrong. This gave the police huge powers. All local police units had to draw up a list of people in their locality who might be suspected of being "Enemies of the State". This list was given to the Gestapo - the Secret Police. The Gestapo had the power to do as it liked. Its leader - Reinhard Heydrich - was one of the most feared man in Nazi Germany. His immediate chief was Heinrich Himmler. Both men ran their respective branches with ruthless efficiency.

Those arrested by either the police or the Gestapo had less than three minutes to pack clothing and say their goodbyes. Once arrested, they were sent to the nearest police cell. Those in custody were told to sign Form D-11; this was an "Order For Protective Custody". By signing this, you agreed to go to prison. Those who did not sign it were beaten until they did or officers simply forged their signature. Once a D-11 was signed, you were sent to a concentration camp. How long you stayed here depended on the authorities. The usual rule of thumb was whether it was felt that you had learned your lesson (even if there had not been one to learn) and would behave in an acceptable manner once outside of prison.

The concentration camps were deliberately barbaric. Before 1939, deaths in them occurred but they were not common. The idea was that anybody who had been in one, once released, would ‘advertise’ the fact that they were not places where people wanted to go. This was another way of ensuring that people kept their ideas to themselves.

The concentration camps were run by men who could disguise their violent nature simply because they wore a uniform. The flogging of inmates was common -25 strokes was common practice - and the amenities were very basic and sparse. At Buchenwald, 480 men had one water tap between them which could only be used for 15 minutes on getting up. Any abuse of this rule would lead to 25 lashes. Any arrested Jew would get 60 lashes - a personal order from Hitler. Soap, toothpaste, toothbrushes etc were unheard of in camps such as Buchenwald (which held 8000 prisoners) and Dachau. Food and drink were minimal and the Jews had half the rations of other prisoners

Who would get arrested?

The list was intentionally expansive. Anybody considered to be a political threat was arrested;

those who made jokes about the Nazi Party were also arrested (jokes about Hitler were punished with death); the "work shy" were also arrested (this fitted in exactly with Hitler’s plan to reduce unemployment as an unemployed person would be offered work at a Labour Exchange and if they refused it as too menial for them, they would be arrested as work shy. As no-one in concentration camps counted as unemployed, the figures for unemployment had to come down; "Bibelforscher’s" were also arrested (these were people who would only seek guidance from the Bible and rejected all Nazi ideas and they also refused to do military service); homosexuals were also arrested and the SS used this as a common tactic to discredit someone. habitual criminals were also arrested.
In 1936, the Gestapo Law meant that the activities of the Gestapo were free from any review by courts of law. This law effectively meant that the Gestapo became a law unto themselves. This non-uniformed branch of the SS became justifiably feared just as the visible presence of the black uniformed SS men did. Himmler's view on the SS was simple. In 1943 he said:

"We have always selected the highest and abandoned the lowest. As long as we maintain this principle, the Order (the SS) will remain healthy. After the war, we shall really build up our Order......it will provide Germany with an elite. This elite will provide leaders to industry, agriculture and politics and the activities of the mind."

To compare what the UK has today to anything resembling Nazi Germany
is complete and utter bullocks I could use an American term but that would be more impolite.

I think you mean't to say "yet theyhave not".

Have not or do not implies the same thing within the context of the statement. Makes no difference.

And of course they don't want to go that way, its far easier to control the masses through manipulation of the media.

The majority of the populous are more than content to allow injustice to occur as long as it does not impede their next ringtone or Prada handbag purchase.

And what "injustice" would this be?

Your highly specific single example?

Oh dear god, the sky is falling....

Not at all, I just can't ignore injustice and allow it to fade into the background, where most people are quite happy to do so.

For a nation of 60+ million people, a single mistaken shooting in god knows how many years is not a bad track record. Your blowing it all out of proportion to push an agenda.

I can think of 3 off the top of my head, but this is not just about the innocent being shot, it is the "above the law" policy that follows these incidents that truly concerns me.

Granted, someone should have been punished for the mistake, but it was largely a procedural error than a malicious killing.

Again, one example a Police State does not make. Show me a trend and I'll think about it.

I think we should stick to the UK instead of going on a global comparison, I'm more than aware of the injustice that occurs on a daily basis throughout the world.

Well, when the "Police State" accusations come about because of comparison to other countries, I think it is only right and fair to compare like for like.

To do not is to not see the big picture and look at the facts with blinkers on.

And I did quote his name so we don't really need to refer to him as "the Brazilian"

I'll call him whatever the bloody hell I like, thankyou very much. I'd rather you stopped telling me what to say.

How rich, your complaining about a "Police State", yet your telling me what I should be saying?

Get off your high horse.

Ah, insults so soon in the discussion...

If asking you to use your brain is an insult, then so be it, don't use your brain. You seem happy to ignore reason and facts, instead focusing on something irrelevant.

Ah yes, the family can now buy a bigger tombstone and feel happy that justice has been served.

Er, do you read your own links? Those two men you linked to that were falsely arrested (one shot by mistake) are both quite alive.

That was a couple of steps beyond a "police state", that was genocide, it wasn't a "police state" for those that went along with it.

Yes, it was. Nazi Germany wasn't all roses, even for the blue eyed and blonde haired amongst them. To think otherwise is foolish and ignoring history.

It seems that you are willing to allow a few innocents to become victims as long as it does not upset the status quo, lets not forget the numerous cases of those who have died in police custody and maybe we should not just concentrate on those that die, but concentrate on the abuse of power.

Oh please!

You make it sound like there is a deliberate effort to kill people in custody! Besides, deaths in custody are but a fraction of total arrests annually and are usually as a result of the prisoners themselves either not taking medication, behaving extremely aggressively and needing restraint or, as in some cases, having taken illegal drugs.

I can think of several deaths in custody that were a result of an aggressive prisoner being restrained, but later found to have a medical condition, such as a heart problem.

Hardly the Police's fault if a 6ft 5 former paratrooper goes ape, takes out a few police in the process (and his missus) and is then sat on until he can calm down.

Would you rather he was tazered? Or shot?

How exactly would YOU deal with an aggressive criminal, seeing as you have all the answers? Give him flowers, perhaps? Tickle him? Ask him nicely to stop being naughty or you'll call his mum?

Give over.

Unless you can demonstrate a planned, institutionalised effort by the Police to be brutal, or to shoot innocent people, then what we have are mistakes made by people. They are only human, after all.

What we have here is a few deaths in custody over an extremely long time span and even if the Police handled everyone with cotton wool and were as nice as pie, people would still die in custody anyway..

What an absurd angle your taking.

Originally posted by andy1033
I know someone who has never commited a crime, that is monitored 24 hours a day by the paedo police(paedo is my word for police). This geezer did nothing in his life for these people to wreck it, it was just that they could do it. It turns out he was the victim in all the stuff done to him, but the police still hound him.

Sounds like a police state to me.

[edit on 7/15/2007 by andy1033]

Going to need more info than that, andy, otherwise it's just hearsay.

Police can't just monitor you for no reason. He can complain if thats the case and if he hasn't, then he's either an idiot or he has actually done something wrong.

DarkStormCrow- what this life showed is the tactics and technologies that the police have in england is beyond belief, and no one is allowed to know.

The police think if there perv into a family house, everyone in that house is somehow the same person. The persons in that house have to pay for what someone in that house(who moved out of this country years ago did). They love the fact what they did to this persons life, fulstop. One rule they seem to have is if the person they want to destroy does nothing, they have to pretend that another person is him, so they can destroy the one they want to destroy.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by andy1033
I know someone who has never commited a crime, that is monitored 24 hours a day by the paedo police(paedo is my word for police). This geezer did nothing in his life for these people to wreck it, it was just that they could do it. It turns out he was the victim in all the stuff done to him, but the police still hound him.

Sounds like a police state to me.

[edit on 7/15/2007 by andy1033]

Going to need more info than that, andy, otherwise it's just hearsay.

Police can't just monitor you for no reason. He can complain if thats the case and if he hasn't, then he's either an idiot or he has actually done something wrong.

Yes they can, people can make up anything they want about anyone. This case is well known about and all his family know he is being monitored. I made a thread in social issues, i think about it.

[edit on 7/15/2007 by andy1033]

Sorry Andy, I don't believe a word of it. Either he is paranoid and delusional, or he has actually done a crime or is suspected of being involved..

I personally believe your friend either doesn't exist or is actually mentally unstable. Wouldn't be the first time.

Police have finite resources anyway, to for you to say they would waste time, money and manpower on "ruining someones life" fore the sheer hell of it is just not believable.

Originally posted by stumason
Sorry Andy, I don't believe a word of it. Either he is paranoid and delusional, or he has actually done a crime or is suspected of being involved..

I personally believe your friend either doesn't exist or is actually mentally unstable. Wouldn't be the first time.

Police have finite resources anyway, to for you to say they would waste time, money and manpower on "ruining someones life" fore the sheer hell of it is just not believable.

People exploit the system, whether you believe it or not, thats not the point. There are seriously dodgy things being done in britain to INNOCENT(see how i shout that word) people. They know all to well he never did anything, but it never goes away. So you do not have to believe anything, but the fact that this case is real, means that there are some really dodgy people in the police doing horrendous things to people they know have never done anything(they know this because they have monitored him for years).

Originally posted by andy1033
DarkStormCrow- what this life showed is the tactics and technologies that the police have in england is beyond belief, and no one is allowed to know.

I have not had this experience with the English Police having travelled to that country several times I dont live in England so I dont have a wealth of experince with thier Police but personally they have always been polite and helpful to me.

Originally posted by andy1033
The police think if there perv into a family house, everyone in that house is somehow the same person. The persons in that house have to pay for what someone in that house(who moved out of this country years ago did). They love the fact what they did to this persons life, fulstop. One rule they seem to have is if the person they want to destroy does nothing, they have to pretend that another person is him, so they can destroy the one they want to destroy.

I dont know enough about the situation and circumstance of what you are discribing so I cant really address it.

Originally posted by andy1033
People exploit the system, whether you believe it or not, thats not the point. There are seriously dodgy things being done in britain to INNOCENT(see how i shout that word) people. They know all to well he never did anything, but it never goes away. So you do not have to believe anything, but the fact that this case is real, means that there are some really dodgy people in the police doing horrendous things to people they know have never done anything(they know this because they have monitored him for years).

Yes, I know. You said that already.

WHAT (see how I shouted that word) are they doing to him?

Seeing as the Police don't have the resources to tackle drunken violence on a Friday night, I really do not believe for a moment they would waste years of manpower, money and equipment just to "annoy" someone.

You see, I know several Police persons. Most of my family (including extended) are either serving or former Forces. I know the types of people that do these jobs and for the life of me, I cannot see the Police doing this, EVER (shouting again...did you notice?)

Any operation needs to be sanctioned by their CO. If it's long running and using up money and manpower, that CO's CO is going to wonder what is going on. You see? If it's on the books, then they must have a reason, either that your insinuating the entire of his local Police Force is corrupt.

In which case, if he is being harassed for no reason, there is the IPCC. Has he used them? If not, he's a moron or lying about what is going on.

Originally posted by Infoholic
The UK Government at any time can take your rights from you. Period. Why?... Because there's no limit to what they can do. The US Government cannot.

Yes they can do that, but the British people over hundreds of years have proven that we wont put up with tyranny. Either from foreign dictators or even our own Kings and even Governments.
Dont forget, the Government doesnt control the Army, Air Force or the Police. Those institutions answer to the Queen. Yes she delegates those powers to the Government at the time but can at any time take them back.

Our laws are based more on what the 'Average man in the street' would think acceptable and as such mean a lot more than a pile of words written down a few hundred years ago, much of which is irrelevant and IMHO dangerous in the 21st Century.

The British peopleare tolerant, byt have proven many times that we wont stand for too much nonsense, es exhibitted in Thatschers time, with her crackpot ideas of a Poll Tax, and she was forced to back down.

Many people both British and Foreign over the years have underestimated our tiny isle, and the mix of people that inhabit it only to receive a very nasty shock.

The UK isnt a Police State, nowhere near when you compare it to places like Singapore or Byelorussia. The cameras we have are effective and do the job whilst not interferring with everyday life.

Don't feel so bad man, I'm a Canadian, we've come to expect Americans to say really stupid things...

It's a joke up here, whenever someone says something in ignorance, to ask if they are American.


Most of the schools down there don't teach much in the way of geography, nor do they educate their kids on how governments are run outside of their own borders.

Most Americans do not own a passport. What could they possibly know about the world?

It leads to things like, calling Canada a communist country... and when you ask why they think that way, their most common response is "Your flag is red" and "Your hospitals are free"

When you actually do educate them on how our government is run, they usually get that shocked look on their face, to learn that we have more control over our government than they do with theirs.

We've simply come to accept that Americans are going to say some really ignorant things. In fact, we've come to think of it as quite humorous... like a 3 stooges film.