| |
|
Ah... when the Police make a mistake, it's an attack on civil liberties. When you make a mistake, everyone else is being pedantic.
Oh blow your nose, Haus: you know full well that linking these two factors is a spurious and facile. When the police make a mistake like the one they may have made today, people are hurt; when I make a mistake like I did earlier, it's no big deal (or rather, it shouldn't be) until an annoying voice decides to highlight it as some kind of sign that everything I say is therefore "hard to take seriously"
This is one reason why it's hard to take you seriously, PW: you're pretty much presenting a caricature of the thin-skinned armchair radical.
Nice. Well, Haus, I find it difficult to swallow some of the stuff you type as well, for the fact that you often sit on the sidelines and jump in making pedantic quips that ultimately derail the conversation. What do YOU think about all this, Haus? Do you think there's a very real possibility of a kind of police state in the UK, or not? Make a comment, form an opinion on this, and let me pick apart the minutiae of your opinions and arguments at the expense of the big picture.
I'd say describing Muslims as ethnically homogenous was a pretty big issue.
Indeed, it is. but do you SERIOUSLY think that I was deliberately insultin Islam (etc)? If the answer is yes, then you really are being annoying. I mean, come on....
I imagine it's all a bit new here.
Do you think the British Armed forces haven't been talking to and learning from the Israelis or the army's experiences in Iraq? As far as our armed forces (etc) are concerned, there's nothing new about it, here or elsewhere. It was just a matter of time before suicide bombing made the leap to the West's doormat, and we all knew it.
If you are suggesting that this was a cock-up now, rather than a systematic attack on civil liberties, well, that's rather a different issue. You mean there were procedural inadequacies? If so, you can presumably tell us what they were with reference to the Police's standard operating procedure and also with reference to the details of today's events. Neither of which you know, which is kind of my point.
You are absolutely right, neither of us knows the details surrounding this legal issues of this "policy", although I remember it being raised during the Harry Stanly case and the police saying unequivocally that they under no circumstances advocated a "shoot to kill policy". Of course, "terrorism" has had an effect on this, but if they've changed the rules, the least they could have done was tell us, no? Granted, I may not have a FULL understanding of British Law (who here does?), but the suggestion that the Police are SUPPOSED to work for us is irrefutable, isn't it? Indeed, to think of the Police as a self-regulating gang and to define "shoot to kill" as procedure rather than Law, helps to justify such bastardisations of our so called democracy.
BTW, a cock-up becomes a matter of civil liberties when people ignore the possibility of a cock-up and the far reaching implications such "events" have on the future of Law and Morallity. |
|
|
