Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

UK Police State

Azrael23 said:
My point wasn`t so much that we are living in a fully fledged police state now...but that in 3/4 years time after MI5 plants a few more bombs...

the more shite like that you post (the more you both obscure any attempts at finding the truth AND do appalling disservice to the poor bastards who died) the more i fucking detest you. And the more I'm convinced you don't give a fuck about the victims, it's all about your stupid fucking games.
Devious, infantile, self-aggrandising, cunt.
 
AnnO'Neemus said:
I was given a Section 14 public order warning a few days ago and threatened with arrest for simply standing about 20 or so metres away from some demonstrators who'd been penned in by police.

Try telling the elderly woman anti-nuclear campaigner who was arrested simply for demonstrating in Manchester a couple of days ago that we don't live in a police state.

Try telling my friends/neighbours who've been assaulted/falsely arrested by police for participating in demonstrations that we don't live in a police state. (And they've subsequently received compensation from the police over what happened, so the police have accepted liability for being in the wrong.)

Just because things aren't as bad over here as they are in other countries, doesn't mean that we live in some kind of utopia that isn't a police state. We are, just to a lesser degree perhaps.

And in which way is any of this behaviour by the OB in any way different from any other time in the last say, 50 years? Did the OB not violently put down the miners strike in the 80s, and weren't MI5 on the case with suveillance and harrassment of lefties/radicals etc during the 60s and 70s? Hell, the OB were more than happy to beat women up, arrest them and as a released document shows today, describe them as 'insane women' 100 years ago.

The difference between the UK and an ACTUAL police state:
1 The demonstrators would have been shot/seriously injured then arrested without even being told why, and maybe released later

2. Is she now walking around freely? Again, in a real police state she wouldn't

3. In a police state they wouldn't get compesation, not an apology - they may even have been denied medical treatment in the first place. Hell, I doubt they'd have even got an apology and compesation back in the 1980s!

It's not a question of being 'as bad' as other countries - it's a question of saying 'Has it gotten any worse', and for my money, with the exception of CCTV, the OB harrassing anti-state protestors of any kind hasn't changed in this country.

Seriously - you should take a trip to somewhere like China, Kazahkstan or Turkmenistan, or maybe Burma (where being the democratically elected leader gets you over a decade under house arrest) and find out what a real police state is, somewhere where just walking down the street whistling a tune that a state official doesn't like can mean you can go to jail and sit there for years without being charged.

Then come back and say that the UK is a police state.
 
Azrael23 said:
The US will be ahead of us though, they`re building concentration camps for christ sake. Laugh, scoff, I couldn`t give a monkeys. You`ll see.
No they are not. <laughs> <scoffs> Waits to see.
 
"My point wasn`t so much that we are living in a fully fledged police state now...but that in 3/4 years time after MI5 plants a few more bombs..."

And then you get to dress up as him and save us all:


4363_180x270.jpg
 
AnnO'Neemus said:
(And they've subsequently received compensation from the police over what happened, so the police have accepted liability for being in the wrong.)
Was a bit sceptical of this thread ... until I stumbled upon this! You're right!!! We ARE in a fucking police state! All police states are totally characterised by the fact that the police ... er ... (a) acknowledge mistakes and (b) compensate citizens when they act unlawfully ...

How could I be so blind? ... :rolleyes:

Overexaggeration Conference that way ------------>>>
 
kyser_soze said:
...Seriously - you should take a trip to somewhere like China, Kazahkstan or Turkmenistan, or maybe Burma (where being the democratically elected leader gets you over a decade under house arrest) and find out what a real police state is, somewhere where just walking down the street whistling a tune that a state official doesn't like can mean you can go to jail and sit there for years without being charged.

Then come back and say that the UK is a police state.
I lived in Beijing for a year and a half, ended up with an invalid visa through changing jobs and my visa not being processed correctly, I was hit by jingcha, and kind of deported, and while there I witnessed a fair few protesters in Tian'anmen Square being bundled into the back of vans and the vans shaking as those inside were being assaulted.

I just think it's a matter of scale.

It really opened my eyes to what a slippery slope we're on with the gradual erosion of our rights.

Lots of my Chinese friends think we in the UK live in some kind of liberal utopia where we can say and do what we please. They have no idea that there are more similarities than they can possibly imagine.

All they hear from Western countries is about China's appalling record on human rights, when we have Belmarsh, a government that enacted a law specifically (although unsuccessfully) with the intention of depriving Brian Thingymajig of a right to protest near parliament, people are treated brutally by the police more often than is widely known or believed by the general public.

I just think it's hypocritically one-sided to condemn countries such as those you mentioned -- which rightly deserve that condemnation in respect of those issues -- without similarly taking a long, hard look at our own record of human rights. We tend to act as though we're on the moral high horse and beyond reproach, but really we're not. Like I said, it's just a matter of scale, in the UK there's probably a handful of people who die in police custody each year, whereas in other, 'badder' countries there are probably hundreds or thousands. We're not beyond reproach, there's blood on our hands, war crimes committed in our name in Iraq/Afghanistan and so on.

I just don't see it as a matter of black and white, we're a police state as bad as China/Burma or wherever or we're not a police state at all; we're guilty of human rights abuses as bad as those inflicted in China/Burma, or we're not guilty of any human rights abuses at all. There are shades of grey. We're not blameless. We're just not as bad as the other countries you mention, but just because we're not as bad, doesn't mean that we're not on that spectrum, we are, but just at the mild end of it.
 
A Dashing Blade said:
That's even loonier than Azreals23's inane drivil. :rolleyes:
It's very easy to dismiss people with insults but can you actually back that up with a reason why my view of the "right" is loony? Or do you substitute having brains with those silly animations?:rolleyes:
 
Patty said:
It's very easy to dismiss people with insults but can you actually back that up with a reason why my view of the "right" is loony? Or do you substitute having brains with those silly animations?:rolleyes:

"When I talk about "right" I mean pro capitalist, hard liners and people who in general take the side of "their country" and accept most of what they are being told by the big media and government."

I'm suggesting that your definition of "right" is superficial and hackneyed and rooted in some rather confusing and mutually exclusive concepts.

You appear to be amalgamating

1) Those who believe that market forces are better at allocating social resources than any Government (pro capitalist)

2) Those who belive in strong penalties for crime (hard liners - at least that's what I take this phrase to mean)

3) Jingoism (people who in general take the side of "their country")

4) Stupidity (accept most of what they are being told by the big media and government)

into a generic catch-all term.
 
A Dashing Blade said:
"When I talk about "right" I mean pro capitalist, hard liners and people who in general take the side of "their country" and accept most of what they are being told by the big media and government."
I'm suggesting that your definition of "right" is superficial and hackneyed and rooted in some rather confusing and mutually exclusive concepts.
You appear to be amalgamating
1) Those who believe that market forces are better at allocating social resources than any Government (pro capitalist)
2) Those who belive in strong penalties for crime (hard liners - at least that's what I take this phrase to mean)
3) Jingoism (people who in general take the side of "their country")
4) Stupidity (accept most of what they are being told by the big media and government)
into a generic catch-all term.

Thank you.
"Right" is a political outlook that incorporates all those things.
A conservative rationale that market forces are the best way to allocate resources, so people should take responsibility for themselves and earn a living. People who don't comform to that view and commit crime should be severaly punished. It's better than the nanny state paying for rehab and other cushy social programmes.
The nation state is crucial to govening this sort of society, "British interests" must be defended if the country is to keep in the game of the global free market economy. The government has been elected democratically by the people and has a mandate to rule as it sees fit and if what the big media says is so wrong why do people buy all those papers/whtch those TV shows in such numbers. Afterall in a market economy it's all about supply and demand.

Thats what I was alluding to, I'll keep to the political short hand to avoid having to explain that over and over again.
 
Patty said:
Thank you.
"Right" is a political outlook that incorporates all those things.

<SNIP> I'll keep to the political short hand to avoid having to explain that over and over again.

That's not political shorthand, it's political simple-mindedness
 
Patty said:
"Right" is a political outlook that incorporates all those things.

Are all of them neccessary conditions to me met to meet your definition of "right"? What are the sufficiant conditions?

Would you place a person (just for the sake of argument you understand) who believes in market forces over govenment intervention, but doesn't give a toss about "British Interests" on the "right"?

Tbh Patty, you're coming accross as someone with a "if you don't agree with me, then you must agree with him" mentality
 
Dubversion said:
That's not political shorthand, it's political simple-mindedness
What I'm getting at is if I use the term "left" or "right" or "liberal" most people know what I mean. Points of reference that differ from other terms such as "socialist" or "nationalist" etc but thats what they imply.
I don't see how using those terms of reference detract from the goals of any of the campaigns that i'm ivolved in or from my ultimate political aims.
Interesting wer'e talking about UK Police State and language becomes an issue. Reminds me of the point made in Orwell's 1984 about Eng Soc (as an aside)
 
Azrael23, I think your heart is in the right place, but you don't half make a tit of yourself with your conspiraloonery. And fuck off about M15 planting bombs under trains: that is a despicable, murderer-exonerating lie.
 
Patty said:
What I'm getting at is if I use the term "left" or "right" or "liberal" most people know what I mean. Points of reference that differ from other terms such as "socialist" or "nationalist" etc but thats what they imply.
I don't see how using those terms of reference detract from the goals of any of the campaigns that i'm ivolved in or from my ultimate political aims.
Interesting wer'e talking about UK Police State and language becomes an issue. Reminds me of the point made in Orwell's 1984 about Eng Soc (as an aside)

" This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of WORDS chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of PHRASES tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house."

George Orwell : Politics and the English Language
 
Badger Kitten said:
Azrael23, I think your heart is in the right place, .

i used to think this, but i'm afraid i no longer do. He's in love with intrigue, with conspiracies and plots and being part of some little clique of people who know the truth. He couldn't give a fuck about the lives involved, they're just characters in this absurd fucking film playing in his head.
 
Whatever cynic. :)

I`m interested in knowing how reading about 9/11 truth and the move towards police state/world war means I think I`m better than everyone, or that I want to play saviour...with my mouse of freedom and keyboard of liberty lol
 
Azrael23 [URL="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=277826260716604258" said:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=277826260716604258[/URL][

That video is shit. It shows fences, railway lines, warehouses, that brick building that "could be used for processing", and some secure turnstile thingies. That does not mean it's a concentration camp. Also (as mentioned on another thread but ignored) why doesn't she tell us where it is? And the photos you show, regardless of your non-sequiter logic do not show that America is building concentration camps. Simply repeating your baseless delusions does not make them so.

Although I agree with you that the erosion of civil liberties is ongoing and a bad thing, just cut the conspiraloon crap.
 
Azrael23 said:
Whatever cynic. :)

I`m interested in knowing how reading about 9/11 truth and the move towards police state/world war means I think I`m better than everyone, or that I want to play saviour...with my mouse of freedom and keyboard of liberty lol


I'm no cynic, azrael23, but i'm not a credulous twat either. And you CONSTANTLY post about how 'we know nothing', we're sheep and you know the truth, like only you've ever read Huxley, like none of these ideas have occurred to any of us before. If that's not claiming to be better than everyone, I don't know what is.

Thing is, i'll lay good money that soon after you finish your degree you'll abandon all this crap and just turn into a whining neurotic bloke in a suit.
 
Not sure, many of the ''9/11 Truth Movement'' I have met seem to be whining middle aged men, so there's no saying he'll grow out of it.

It's a cult, remember. Or at least, it operates like one.
 
Dubversion said:
I'm no cynic, azrael23, but i'm not a credulous twat either. And you CONSTANTLY post about how 'we know nothing', we're sheep and you know the truth, like only you've ever read Huxley, like none of these ideas have occurred to any of us before. If that's not claiming to be better than everyone, I don't know what is.

Thing is, i'll lay good money that soon after you finish your degree you'll abandon all this crap and just turn into a whining neurotic bloke in a suit.

When have I ever claimed any of the things you point out as fact?
 
Azrael23 said:
When have I ever claimed any of the things you point out as fact?

From your own Aldous Huxley thread:

"You guys know nothing about this."

"Rather than hypnotising yourselves into this delusional paradigm whereby anyone who points out the complete double think involved in your rationalisations....is a drug-addled kook."

"Perhaps I do know better than you so far as this is concerned? I`m only trying to open peoples eyes to the idea of scientific dictatorships, mass psychology etc. So that you can recognise it in your own life and make more rational life decisions."

42525711.pwned.jpg
 
Thats out of context, it was in response to a bunch of insults.

I didnt want to pose as anything, It just stumped me as to why talking about mass psychology is kooky. :confused:

Why not just respond to the information rather than trying deride the person posting it, you know...real discussion?
 
Context be fucked. You asked where you'd claimed other people knew nothing (Dubversion's claim), and I showed you.

Give us a "P"!
Give us a "W"!
Give us and "N"!
etc...

As for not responding to the information, there's no point in discussing anything with you.
 
Azrael23 said:
Thats out of context, it was in response to a bunch of insults.

I didnt want to pose as anything, It just stumped me as to why talking about mass psychology is kooky. :confused:

Why not just respond to the information rather than trying deride the person posting it, you know...real discussion?

What information? :confused:
 
Azrael23 said:
Thats out of context, it was in response to a bunch of insults.

as brixtonvilla put it, context be fucked. You stomp and piss and moan and big yourself up and put everybody else down. For all your wanking on about caring about what 'they're' doing to 'us', you have a fairly low opinion of most of 'us'.

You've revealed yourself consistently as being both full of shit AND self-important. It's a dangerous combination.
Do fuck off
 
Back
Top Bottom