BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


A Very British Police State?

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
18:03 / 05.09.06
Inspired by PW's post in the Tony Blair Kiddie thread;

For though I'm not a legal expert, I can't help feeling that every day in the UK we are getting ever closer to a social and political climate which is becoming easier and easier to describe as a Police State. Indeed, although in the UK we enjoy certain freedoms compared to more brutal totalitarian states, I'd argue our that our civil liberties are being eroded and exploited, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes easy to implement a regime such as those which many of us are more personally acquainted with through fiction.

Now, I'm dual nationality - English/American. Citizen of both I guess, but not really as I've only ever lived in England. I love this country - sure it's shit at times, and there's the class system that ended fifty years ago that we all still worry about, and we're all repressed (well, not all of us), but it's one of the better (if not best - apart from canada) western powers.

Now the idea that this little place could become a police state - I'm not buying it. I don't think it could happen. This could be because of our nature, our identity. It could be because of the racial/social/religious melting pot that stews around us. The main reason, IMHO, is because of our media.

Our national news, specifically the BBC - Noam Chomsky views it as the news of the intellectual elite, but for us it's the standard. Our newspapers - with thier bias' and preocupation with shit, don't let anyone get away with anything. Last election we had three days of news because some women couldn't get an opperation for gods sake. I spend about a month a year visiting my father in America, and when I watch thier news I ask myself how long it would take for them to allow a police state to come into effect, but over here, I don't see it being allowed to happen. People are to well informed about what a shit job the government are doing. We've had our 9/11, July 7th, and yet while we've allowed a small amount of cival liberties to fall away, we've not done so in quite the same way america have. For a really harsh comparison Watch this spot from the daily show and what John Stewart thinks.

Again, I'm not so erudite as others, so people, make this thread good please!
 
 
All Acting Regiment
18:11 / 05.09.06
While all those are good things you've just mentioned, no-one should ever be stupid enough to laugh off the idea of a police state happening. That's not to say we shouldn't be positive, and it's not to say we should all be grenading Constable Grenville next time we see him- just that when these things go bad, they go bad fast. There are new laws coming in all the time. You can be arrested and put in Guantanamo Bay without trial so long as someone thinks you're a terrorist.

And of course, some people, those at the bottom of the pile, might feel as though a police state is already happening...
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
18:13 / 05.09.06
But doesn't the fact that we are aware that such things are happening, that the media talks openly about such things, that people are protesting about it, that my sister who is 12 asked me to explain Guantanimo Bay to her, are the very reasons that a police state would be near impossible to form?
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
18:56 / 05.09.06
Mathelete: (for example) many people in what have been called Police States have known when (say) others have been "disapeared" without trial. Didn't make much difference to Stalinist USSR at the time, or elswehere for that matter.

The UK is not really any different to any other state in respect of whether:

"This could be because of our nature, our identity. It could be because of the racial/social/religious melting pot that stews around us. The main reason, IMHO, is because of our media.

Seriously, the UK is not special. (well, not in this respect anyway)

But legba's right about being positive, though. I definitely lean towards pessimism with all this, and I have to be careful to try not to get stuck in the old RAW 'reality tunnel' type of thang.

Oy vey...
 
 
nighthawk
18:57 / 05.09.06
I really think people need to be clear about what they mean by 'police state'. Wikipedia says:

A police state is a state with authority which uses the police, especially secret police, to maintain and enforce political power, even through violent or arbitrary means if necessary.

Now why would the people in power in Britain need to resort to such means? The only reason I can think of is massive civil unrest, caused by either a) a break down in the infrastructure of society through very effective terrorist attacks; b) a war involving direct attacks on British soil; or c) an organised majority rejecting our current parliamentary system, which situates and legitimises power at the moment.

I honestly can't see a-c happening any time soon. But this has nothing to do with e.g. the quality of the British Press. If the current distribution of power in this country was seriously threatened, then the media would be the first to defend it, as they depend on it for their existence.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
19:25 / 05.09.06
I would disagree that the media has a vested interest in keeping those in power in power. See the many disagreements between the current labour government and the BBC (Peter Mandleson/NHS/Iraq/Terror Attacks/Sexy Dossiers...), the previous conservative government and the BBC (Sleaze mainly, I was very young). That's all the governements I've lived through.

I would also argue that the current situation with immagration is different from many of the other major western powers, as far as I am aware. We don't have, say, the societal rascism of France, or America for that matter. I'm not saying that this is some racial utopia, but the widespread racial predudice of France, slightly less so in America, but still there (watch fox news for the media's view on immagration, and tell me that isn't at least dodgy). Gay Marriage as well - homophobia seems to be fine and dandy over there.

You can't seriously compare modern england, say for the last 10 years, and stalinsit russia? People arn't disaperaing - we know where they are, Guantanimo. Or am I missing something?
 
 
nighthawk
19:36 / 05.09.06
OK I don't have time to write properly about the media here, but watch this youtube clip. Its all good, but particularly 6:17ff. Actually, regardless of what you think of Chomsky, all three clips are worth watching just to see Marr embarassingly outclassed.

Basically the examples you are talking about are divisions and struggles between those in power, not real contestations of the current distribution.
 
 
Francine I
20:36 / 05.09.06
"You can't seriously compare modern england, say for the last 10 years, and stalinsit russia? People arn't disaperaing - we know where they are, Guantanimo. Or am I missing something?"

I suppose that depends on how you'd define "disappeared", and also "...know(s) where they are". I would suggest that a network of 'secret' prisons where suspects are taken without trial and tortured to reveal secrets they may or may not be in possession of might just make it past qualifying rounds.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
20:52 / 05.09.06
Perhaps the so-called 'New Media' (blogging etc.) could reduce the chances of a police-state coming into power in a contry, like the U.K, with a technologically literate population. Already in contemporary police-states such as Iran and China, where a lower percentage of the population have internet access, there are networks of bloggers speaking out against their governments. Despite repressive measures (such as Google's unholy alliance with the Chinese government) they continue to report for both the inside and outside world on human rights abuses in their countries.
One could easily imagine how in Britain, where camera phones are becoming ubiquitous, government abuses could be easily recorded and uploaded to a video-hosting site like Youtube. In the critical early stages of a Fascist coup de'tat this may be enough to create a counter-movement.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
21:08 / 05.09.06
Does the UK send people to these secret prison, as I thought that this was just an american deal?
 
 
Francine I
21:19 / 05.09.06
"Does the UK send people to these secret prison, as I thought that this was just an american deal?"

The UK and a number of other countries allow US intelligence agencies to quietly ship away suspects. They scratch each other's backs.
 
 
Supersister
22:07 / 05.09.06
Civil liberties are being eroded and exploited but at the same time the power of the state is weakening. I am British born and bread and this is already a police state in a more saphisticated sense than Stalinist Russia because the information age has made mental violence a more efficient means of population control than the old physical version. We have a tradition of popular dissent in this country and this is factored into popular culture and as part of our cultural identity, with Guantanamo the thinking person's NHS scandal. The disappearing are all around, the without papers, the invisible foreigners who pass through our detention camps and airports, to be tortured elsewhere so their screams don't constitute anti-social behaviour.
 
 
Francine I
22:22 / 05.09.06
I guess I should qualify further that I find that detail pertinent because what I find most concerning is the prospect of a cooperative group of velvet-gloved "polite state lite" style governments doing each other's dirty work. A good example of precedent for this type of cooperation would be Echelon, arguably born of the UKUSA agreement. Because SIGINT spooks from the NSA would shack up in a listening station like Menwith Hill courtesy of spooks from GCHQ, a large amount of "harmless information sharing" (much of which arguably circumvents standard legal protections) was/is likely. I'm not certain whether the UK enjoys protections pertaining to nearly omniscient intelligence entities, but in the US, the NSA isn't allowed to spy on US civilians. There's nothing to stop the GCHQ from doing so with the NSA's approval, however, and furnishing that data for whomever might be curious. So supposing that parties in power in the UK wanted to disappear somebody - what's the likelihood, do you suppose, that the CIA might oblige a good friend?
 
 
nighthawk
06:58 / 06.09.06
I am British born and bread and this is already a police state in a more saphisticated sense than Stalinist Russia because the information age has made mental violence a more efficient means of population control than the old physical version.

Could you expand on that Supersister? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'mental violence'.
 
 
Supersister
14:15 / 06.09.06
Certainly. People's thoughts and ideas are manipulated from an early age, they are programmed by state-controlled education and the media to conform and to fear losing their homes or their income or being declared criminal or insane. The mental fear of being different is far more powerful than the fear of a whack with a truncheon. Concepts of eccentricity and rebellion are factored in to pander to traditions of popular dissent and to give the impression of choice but in fact almost every aspect of our existence is proscribed within extremely narrow cultural boundaries for the convenience of the powerful and wealthy.
 
 
nighthawk
14:52 / 06.09.06
I think I understand. Why do you think this is specific to the 'information age'? And how did you manage to evade or overcome this mental violence, and move beyond the 'extremely narrow cultural boundaries'?
 
 
Supersister
16:48 / 06.09.06
I'm not sure I did! I do have the fortune of a good education which taught me to question everything, which helps in the daily attempt at disinfection. The information age puts a TV, radio and PC in every home, making it easy to blast information at people day and night.
 
 
Supersister
16:50 / 06.09.06
Sorry, I should have said in particular, visual and audio information, which is processed extremely quickly, often unconsciously, in contrast with the written word.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
17:14 / 06.09.06
Mathlete: I PAID MY DUES! I would disagree that the media has a vested interest in keeping those in power in power. See the many disagreements between the current labour government and the BBC (Peter Mandleson/NHS/Iraq/Terror Attacks/Sexy Dossiers...), the previous conservative government and the BBC (Sleaze mainly, I was very young). That's all the governements I've lived through.

The BBC will suck up to not only who is in power, but who they think is going to be in power. The time they give over to Blair's total collapse is to make nice with Brown, the increased time they have given to the Conservatives since David 'Call me Dave' Cameron got in (as opposed to Hague, Duncan Smith or Howard) is because they think there might be a chance they get in at the next election.

Yes, they will cover the escapades of a David Blunkett but they are almost never the ones to break the story, they are pushing against doors that others have opened. Which is not to say they are in the Government's pocket but they are not independent Lefties either. Science stories tend to be towards the interests of big business, look at their coverage of campaigners for animal rights: No matter how cleanly the campaigner scrubs up, they could shave, cut their hair and put on a suit, they could have facts at their fingertips and be polite, never interupt and never insult their opponant, they'll be asked why they terrorise families even if they don't (I've seen this on Newsnight with non-violent groups, they are repeatedly asked to disown the tactics of the ALF or SHAC, in much the same way Muslim guests are always asked to disown extremism when they have no link to it).

And from the latest Privet Eye: 'On the day the government revealed it's new Minister for Fitness the BBC News at Ten led with... :'new figures show the alarming scale of obesity in Britain' said Fiona Bruce.
The figures were the government's own and were endorsed by the BBC...
The next day, the Ten led with another government initiative. It was the day that Ruth Kelly announced a 'bold' new initiative to tackle ethnic tensions: 'are ethnic tensions leading to the break up of society in Britain', asked a helpful Fiona Bruce
.

Not to mention that, around the same time the Government decided that immigration was a disaster and we're being flooded by the buggers the editorial policy of Newsnight switched from broadly agnostic to 'this is a disaster and we're being swamped by Romanians!'

So, don't confuse the fact that Alistair Campbell got pissed off at the BBC over the Andrew Gilligan story as meaning that the BBC News department are wild-eyed loners at the gates of oblivion.
 
 
nighthawk
18:55 / 06.09.06
Sorry, I should have said in particular, visual and audio information, which is processed extremely quickly, often unconsciously, in contrast with the written word.

Wow, so its almost brainwashing. I'm still not convinced though, because I've always thought that in general people were actually very savvy. They are aware of the various pressures exerted on them in their day-to-day lives and negotiate them as best they can, often very creatively in fact.
 
 
Supersister
00:07 / 08.09.06
It's about having viable alternatives. We do all tend to live within very narrow cultural perimeters. Perhaps it's because the majority are superficially content, ie. all basic wants met, desires sated, and so don't see any need for diversification or change. I don't believe most people are savvy in the way I think you imply. To to a large extent, I see that most people just accept what they're told without asking too many questions, and the questions they do ask are answered for them glibly. People may be aware they are brainwashed but lack the alternative perspective to even see the disadvantage, especially if it rests with an invisible minority they need not worry about. This is a police state in the most profound sense.
 
 
nighthawk
09:44 / 08.09.06
It's about having viable alternatives.

See again I agree, but I think people embrace alternatives when they arise. Until they end up failing them anyway, which they almost always do - look at the history of the Labour party in the C20th, or the unions, or even the 'Stop the War' coalition.

When I say people are 'savvy', in one sense I mean that they realise that these alternatives are failing them and drift away. This seems pretty rational to me. They carry on with their lives, and negotiate the pressures that directly affect them as best they can. Everyone knows that the newspaper lie, that big business shapes the agenda of governments, etc. But until the left come up with viable and effective alternatives, and people see these in action and experience their effects, why should they put their faith in another earnest politico telling them that they are all brainwashed?

This is why I'm always a little hesitant when people claim we're living in some new psychological police state - I hate the attendant imagery, herds of superficially content proles dazed and overwhelmed by the bright lights and flashing screens. Yes, people find a social totality that is massively more powerful than they are individually; but they don't find many real effective alternatives to it and they can't shape it by themselves; still, they do display enormous amounts of creativity in their daily lives despite such overwhelming pressure. This is what I think the left need to encourage and develop, not the idea of a passive duped mass.
 
 
Supersister
15:23 / 08.09.06
That seems so contradictory. On the one hand people are too something-or-other, preoccupied by daily struggles, to think up these alternatives themselves yet at the same time they embrace them when they somehow arise? We can discuss spontaneous idea synthesis and higher intelligence etc, but on this practical human level surely alternatives arise only from people themselves? On the other hand you say people are creative. It all sounds a little like we here are some parental elite looking down on the poor dumb masses discussing what's best for them and then imposing it by suggestion, exactly the perspective you say you disagree with.

My point is that ordinary, or less wealthy, people are indeed passive. They do ignore the problems around them or wait simply to pay lip service to the next alternative presented to them from above, which in reality is no more than the exact same thing with a 'new! improved!' packaging, or this season's colours. The same people in positions of power, ie. with money, pass on their jobs to their family or friends or even to those they consider to show merit, thereby paying homage in fact to their own vanity and continued conviction that they know what's best for others, but they continue to pay themselves vast and obscene amounts of money, thereby denying others. It's the 'other' economics of want, the real one.

The majority of people do not think outside of their immediate environment or realise the poverty they live in, in that that they are being cheated and working hard for very little return, with the profits going elsewhere to people who do less work. As you say, most people have a basic understanding of this, it is a kind of mythology and this is the fake popular dissent which I say underpins our culture, but no-one feels able to do anything. They are afraid of losing the status quo.

In a nutshell, I am suggesting that far from being a natural thing, that fear is a form of mental violence deliberately manufactured and encouraged by the people whom the status quo suits very nicely thank you. It matches their helicopter

Who are this left of whom you speak? I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I see left-right politics as just another part of the smokescreen, a divide and rule policy which keeps people arguing. The solutions are so simple. Pay people fairly for the work they do according to the profits that work generates. Stop creaming off the profits at the top.

I think one problem may be lesser-talked of (or maybe in hushed awed tones) British Dream. Secretly we want to support the status quo because we hope that one day we, or if not our children might be accepted into the ranks of the obscenely lazy and rich. If we subscribe to an ideology in which no-one is fantasy rich, there is no chance for us. It's our only escape.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
13:10 / 11.09.06
Secretly we want to support the status quo because we hope that one day we, or if not our children might be accepted into the ranks of the obscenely lazy and rich. If we subscribe to an ideology in which no-one is fantasy rich, there is no chance for us. It's our only escape

It's the whole Horatio Alger thing - it's also one of the main arguments people use against higher taxation of the rich, even if it effects them economically - one day I might be rich and I want to enjoy it.

People's thoughts and ideas are manipulated from an early age, they are programmed by state-controlled education and the media to conform and to fear losing their homes or their income or being declared criminal or insane.

But isn't what you're decribing just "the norm"? People have always had to subscribe to what is considered normal, for fear of being described as insane, or loony, or whatever the parlance of the day was. In terms of criminality, I'm unsure of how the government is outlawing any of our basic rights (free speech/right to protest).

With regards to education, my education contained exactly zero discussion of how "the state" was right. Possibly having to follow rules set out by authroity teaches that, but then I would argue the need for this at a young age. But the actual education mainly consisted of giving me the tools and knowledge to survive in the modern world.

The information age puts a TV, radio and PC in every home, making it easy to blast information at people day and night.

But all this information allows people to make informed descisions about the information they are being blasted with.

'this is a disaster and we're being swamped by Romanians!'

see, I saw a newsnight where they were broadly supportive of immigration, discussing the leaders of industries unwavering support for immagration, as well as the positives of immigration. I always figured newsnight as an editorial show, as opposed to straight news, so you are going to be presented with peoples views as well as news stories.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
10:08 / 12.09.06
The solutions are so simple. Pay people fairly for the work they do according to the profits that work generates.

To me, this system sounds utterly horrific - in many ways, even worse than the current situation - and I hope that what you actually mean is slightly different to the above. From my reading of it, it starts with the idea that "profit" is the primary goal of all work - so any work not intended to turn a profit is utterly worthless - and then states that anyone either incapable of making or failing to make such a profit deserves to starve on the street. And as well as that, it depends on exactly how this profit is attributed; for example, if the manager of company x fired a thousand of hir workers, it might increase profit, and thus the manager would be "deserving" of taking home all that extra money - which brings us surprisingly close to how things are currently run...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:24 / 12.09.06
It also doesn't really allow for any kind of welfare state- who's gonna work for the NHS for even less money than it pays now?
 
 
Quantum
14:12 / 12.09.06
It precludes a welfare state by assuming a totally free market society IMHO. Capitalism solves all problems dontcherknow.
 
 
Fist Fun
13:19 / 13.09.06
I like living in a rich, free, democracy like the UK. I count myself very, very lucky. It is going way, way too far to talk about a police state. I count my blessings.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:13 / 13.09.06
Would you think the same were you a member of a demographic that was regularly stopped and searched, though? (I admit, I'm making assumptions here. I'm assuming that you're not).

I also don't think we're living in a police state... I do, however, think the time to worry about it is before it happns, rather than after.
 
 
Seth
22:18 / 13.09.06
I don't think it'd take too much for the police to gain a lot more power very quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if they were all carrying guns in Britain within the decade, for example. You'd get a lot of principled officers leaving because of it, but I reckon all it would really take is a real or imagined threat that directly targeted police lives. In the kind of world we seem to be moving towards that's not so hard to imagine.
 
 
Fist Fun
10:59 / 14.09.06
I don't think I have ever heard of anyone I know, or seen anyone, being stopped and searched in the UK. How often does that happen? It is just not something I see although I take the point if it did happen I would think otherwise...does it happen regularly to anyone here?

I'm living in Germany at the moment and it happened last week to an Italian friend...
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
12:03 / 14.09.06
Wait, am I reading this right- you've never heard of anyone being stopped and searched in the UK? The Police stop and search people all the time, for a variety of reasons. It's a pretty common occurance, especially in areas with high drug and gun crime.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:17 / 14.09.06
Stop'n'search is really pretty fucking common. Especially for black people, and people who look like they may possibly be Muslims. It's happened a couple of times recently to an Indian friend of mine- the joke being that he is, to the best of my knowledge, a staunch atheist.

It's never happened to me, which is funny, cos I reckon the cops'd have way more chance of finding something incriminating or illegal on me than they would on the perfectly normal (though kinda foreign-looking) people they usually go for.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:52 / 14.09.06
I don't think I have ever heard of anyone I know, or seen anyone, being stopped and searched in the UK.

Do you have many black or Asian friends, Buk? That's a serious question; if you don't, your chances of not knowing anyone who has been stopped and searched improve massively. The latest statistics say that black people are six times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people, and Asian people twice as likely.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:02 / 14.09.06
The high point of stop and search being, of course, when the Police stopped and searched John Sentamu, then the Suffragan Bishop of Stepney and now the Archbishop of York, who also has among his credentials the chairmanship of a review into the police handling of the murder of Damilola Taylor. Six times.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply