Enough.

[egb_hibs]

Whatever else that happens after the election, the sinister metamorphosis of the police needs to stop.

They seem to have progressed from paying visits to christians and muslims not pc enough wrt homosexuality, and homosexuals not pc enough wrt muslims, to giving the third degree to those not pc enough on climate change;

"In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who "wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions".

The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person's political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.

Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent "an FOI request to the university's climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...mmentKey:8ed505d5-b07f-4290-a818-9ef1d21cdbe9

 

[arthurduncan]

i have heard of a few high profile examples of overzealous policing in this politicised context. I think it is right to ask a few questions about this example before reaching a final judgement, for instance, why were this terrorist unit used? was it indicative of a judgement that the people involved were potential terrorists or that the relevant investigative expertise was available in this unit. However I accept it may end up showing something worrying especially in the context of the misuse of terrorist legislation.

I do wonder how far this translates into Scotland and would point out that the relationship between police and government in Scotland is much "healthier". The SG Justice Dept and its Ministers have absolutely no operational control or (surprising as this sounds even influence) over policing, unlike the Home Office which has created all kinds of performance management, targets, etc., which "forces" chief constables in certain directions. Interestingly of course terrorism is one of the few reserved areas in policing in terms of law, but the delivery of it is devolved (Scotland has its own strategy, oversight groups, etc.).

So agree there is something to explore here to ensure we are balancing investigating crime and liberty, but I wouldn't yet give it the apocalyptic spin you have.

 

[egb_hibs]

So agree there is something to explore here to ensure we are balancing investigating crime and liberty, but I wouldn't yet give it the apocalyptic spin you have.

I know someone who got a visit for a thought crime. If you talk in front of the wrong person, you can indeed get denounced, and then expect a visit; in scotland, same as in the rest of the UK.

 

[egb_hibs]

So agree there is something to explore here to ensure we are balancing investigating crime and liberty, but I wouldn't yet give it the apocalyptic spin you have.

I am unaware of any acts of climate change-skeptic terrorism and am baffled as to why hacking the computers of fibbing scientists is an act of terrorism as opposed to simply a crime.

The same goes for the act of protesting about climate change, which as the article notes, is also treated in a heavy handed fashion.

 

[arthurduncan]

I am unaware of any acts of climate change-skeptic terrorism and am baffled as to why hacking the computers of fibbing scientists is an act of terrorism as opposed to simply a crime.

The same goes for the act of protesting about climate change, which as the article notes, is also treated in a heavy handed fashion.

I am still not clear about the facts in this case hence my refusal to make a judgement of the sort you are suggesting - equally I am not denying that there is something odd here. Has there been a response from the police explaining their use of terrorist legislation? Factual rather than conspiritorial question. I may even be slightly sympathetic to your cause - the police have form in using terrorist legislation rather too frequently. HOWEVER, my interpretation is that they like as easy a life as possible and we and our democratically elected representatives have permitted the provision of increasingly intrusive tools for them to play with. I still dont see the persecution of "thought crime" (against whom? the Government? the Labour Party? The SNP in Scotland?) but rather the natural consequence of an overly heavily policed state, which by the way we (the punishment happy public) seem delighted with. Apparently no party can get into Government now without promising fcukin huge numbers of plod on our streets. That's the bigger scandal here.

 

[egb_hibs]

I still dont see the persecution of "thought crime" (against whom? )

Against the party, the people, and the correct way of thinking.

3000 new laws give them ample pretext for just about anything.

 

[arthurduncan]

I know someone who got a visit for a thought crime. If you talk in front of the wrong person, you can indeed get denounced, and then expect a visit; in scotland, same as in the rest of the UK.

a bit too enigmatic to be helpful. I and plenty of people I know have at one time or another committed a "thought crime" without any such visit (whether protesting, membership of political parties or movements, direct action etc). What is one example from you intended to prove? Again, not saying I am happy with the usual consequences of such action, e.g., being videoed, stopped, minor disruption, but persecution for thought crime? No.

 

[arthurduncan]

Against the party, the people, and the correct way of thinking.

3000 new laws give them ample pretext for just about anything.

I've put my cards on the table. I think there are a number of issues which demand we be slightly more cautious than you in declaring us to be living in a fascist state. These include but are not limited to the important differences between Scotland and England - thankfully for various reasons, Scotland has not deployed its legislative powers in anywhere near the way Westminster has, which is as much about the machismo of Westminster and its Government than a sign of something completely sinister. Also with Lib Dems and now SNP having been and being actual parties of government in Scotland, the conspiracy would have to be of a David Icke global sort - Cathy Jamieson (a decent enough women ruined by her association with the party hierarchy) and her succesor Kenny MacAskill (a decent enough guy with a taste for the Hibs) have nowt much in common politically and would happily expose the other's nefarious practices and intentions for political mileage. Why would Kenny not expose this? Cause he's part of it too? Suppose it's the civil servants? Paranoia.

Are we overly regulated? yes. Are we now subect to anti-thought crime laws? not really. There are some issues round the edges - intolerance laws etc. but if there can be lunatics like the BNP operating openly in the UK and many other examples where the equivalent would be policed out of existence elsewhere (China etc) we haven't crossed any line as yet.

 

[egb_hibs]

a bit too enigmatic to be helpful. I and plenty of people I know have at one time or another committed a "thought crime" without any such visit (whether protesting, membership of political parties or movements, direct action etc). What is one example from you intended to prove? Again, not saying I am happy with the usual consequences of such action, e.g., being videoed, stopped, minor disruption, but persecution for thought crime? No.

People, both Christian and Muslim, have been visited or prosecuted for expressing the view that homosexuality is a sin. Conversely, homosexuals have been visited for 'islamophobic' statements. People have been visited for questioning the wisdom of multi culturalism. Children have been arrested in schools for alleged racism. Old folks home losing license for not filling in survey on sexual orientation of it's wrinklies. Google will provide many more.

 

[egb_hibs]

I've put my cards on the table. I think there are a number of issues which demand we be slightly more cautious than you in declaring us to be living in a fascist state. These include but are not limited to the important differences between Scotland and England - thankfully for various reasons, Scotland has not deployed its legislative powers in anywhere near the way Westminster has, which is as much about the machismo of Westminster and its Government than a sign of something completely sinister. Also with Lib Dems and now SNP having been and being actual parties of government in Scotland, the conspiracy would have to be of a David Icke global sort - Cathy Jamieson (a decent enough women ruined by her association with the party hierarchy) and her succesor Kenny MacAskill (a decent enough guy with a taste for the Hibs) have nowt much in common politically and would happily expose the other's nefarious practices and intentions for political mileage. Why would Kenny not expose this? Cause he's part of it too? Suppose it's the civil servants? Paranoia.

Are we overly regulated? yes. Are we now subect to anti-thought crime laws? not really. There are some issues round the edges - intolerance laws etc. but if there can be lunatics like the BNP operating openly in the UK and many other examples where the equivalent would be policed out of existence elsewhere (China etc) we haven't crossed any line as yet.

We are not a fascist state yet. Nor even a communist one, which is the more apt example for various reasons.

And I agree that scotland is not as bad, because the SNP are a sane centre left party, wholly unlike the ideological quacks of the labour establishment.

But we are definitely headed in the wrong direction, and just because you are not in one of the scapegoat groups just yet, is no reason for complacency.

There will be no kristalnacht here, but we are seeing a slow but inexorable erosion of liberties, and the corresponding advance of an unprecedented level (for the UK) of state authoritarianism. All in the name of an ideological credo which is not shared, nor wished for, nor in many cases voted for even implicitly, by the population.

 

[arthurduncan]

fair enough - I agree we are over policed. (In the spirit of keeping this discussion going until someone else joins in!) I see this as having a less ideological edge than you. My perhaps ultimately equally dramatic interpretation involves believing some pretty harsh things about the collective moral consciousness of my fellow man. convergence with party doctrine then comes a distant second to the prejudices of the public in explaining the phenomenon. In other words, I see the political machine aggravating but basically reflecting human beliefs and behaviour - sometimes it leads but usually it follows. So the question becomes where does the doctrine that drives this and other similar regressive movements come from? I need to find a deep thinker who espouses a view that these societal facts (being over policed) is simply a reflection of us, in the sense that we always get the system we deserve. Blame in other words always lies much closer to home.

 

[egb_hibs]

fair enough - I agree we are over policed. (In the spirit of keeping this discussion going until someone else joins in!) I see this as having a less ideological edge than you. My perhaps ultimately equally dramatic interpretation involves believing some pretty harsh things about the collective moral consciousness of my fellow man. convergence with party doctrine then comes a distant second to the prejudices of the public in explaining the phenomenon. In other words, I see the political machine aggravating but basically reflecting human beliefs and behaviour - sometimes it leads but usually it follows. So the question becomes where does the doctrine that drives this and other similar regressive movements come from? I need to find a deep thinker who espouses a view that these societal facts (being over policed) is simply a reflection of us, in the sense that we always get the system we deserve. Blame in other words always lies much closer to home.

Well yes. Specifically, society cannot survive the death of religion without going this way.

Without an organic set of values, mutually subscribed to, society cannot self regulate and thus an ever larger state is required.

This has been a designed-in aim of communist systems who systematically set about eradicating such means of self regulation in order that they could realise the total state. Religion is of course itself abusable for authoritarian ends, but utopian totalitarianism, which is a different order of thing entirely, depends on removing self sufficiency.

We, meanwhile, are experiencing a much diluted version of the same dynamics, pursued both inadvertantly and absolutely deliberately; a mix of the pedestrian stupidity of those Lenin called useful idiots, who pull the roof down on their heads without realising they are doing so, and crypto totalitarians who know exactly what they are doing.

Labour's 3000 new laws marks an acceleration of what looks dismayingly like an inexorable process now. The EU's imperium likewise. Both organisations are inhabited by the types described previously - plus a lot of other people who should know better, but persuade themselves to hang in there for the greater good.

None of the above means we should not protest what is happening. Do not go quietly Arthur.

 

[hibs1986]

fair enough - I agree we are over policed. ( 1 In the spirit of keeping this discussion going until someone else joins in!) I see this as having a less ideological edge than you. My perhaps ultimately equally dramatic interpretation involves believing some pretty harsh things about the collective moral consciousness of my fellow man. convergence with party doctrine then comes a distant second to the prejudices of the public in explaining the phenomenon. In other words, I see the political machine aggravating but basically reflecting human beliefs and behaviour - sometimes it leads but usually it follows. So the question becomes where does the doctrine that drives this and other similar regressive movements come from? 2 I need to find a deep thinker who espouses a view that 3 these societal facts (being over policed) is simply a reflection of us, in the sense that we always get the system we deserve. Blame in other words always lies much closer to home.

1. Seeing as you're asking....
2. I don't think I'm what you're after, but:

While I also think we're over-policed, I find it hard to buy into the 'liberal elite' conspiracy that egb suspects is actively plotting our ideological incarceration. I suspect that the opposite is true - the legal and political quagmire is a product of a lack of strategy and forethought, rather than an excess of it. Much legislation appears to take place as a reaction to a specific circumstance / tragedy / event, often in the heat of the moment. (And no, before you ask, I can't think of specific examples right now. It's past my bedtime:...), and the result is messy, and sometimes unproductive. i think, basically, I'm agreeing with point 3.

 

[arthurduncan]

1. Seeing as you're asking....
2. I don't think I'm what you're after, but:

While I also think we're over-policed, I find it hard to buy into the 'liberal elite' conspiracy that egb suspects is actively plotting our ideological incarceration. I suspect that the opposite is true - the legal and political quagmire is a product of a lack of strategy and forethought, rather than an excess of it. Much legislation appears to take place as a reaction to a specific circumstance / tragedy / event, often in the heat of the moment. (And no, before you ask, I can't think of specific examples right now. It's past my bedtime:...), and the result is messy, and sometimes unproductive. i think, basically, I'm agreeing with point 3.

i think you and I are agreeing - we are going a certain distance with EGB (we are over-policed, freedom under threat, heading in wrong direction) but stopping short of the giant conspiracy he alleges. I agree that the "3000 laws" is not in itself enough to prove anything (other than a ridiculous addiction to lawmaking) since most of it is just adding noise to the system and hardly being used, at least for the purpose it would have to be to make what EGB says true. I think this does as much to emphasise EGB's libertarian assumptions as anything else. It's just that I don't share them, although they are reasonable.

 

[gun ainm]

Well yes. Specifically, society cannot survive the death of religion without going this way.

Without an organic set of values, mutually subscribed to, society cannot self regulate and thus an ever larger state is required.

I see you're returning to the debate about whether people can derive a (shared) morality in the absence of religious (near) homogenity, with a side helping of how multi-culturalism equals 'bad'. We have been over this ground before - several times iirc - but your assertion doesn’t become true merely by its repetition. I'd contend as before that a shared morality (or ethics) is (are) a product of community (as is religion or at least religious interpretation). Look at whaling for example, which has seen a massive turnaround in public opinion over the last 50 years, not driven by religion - the other major issues of the day - climate change included, none that i can think of are being directly influenced by religion. Even the abortion debate has effectively moved beyond the religious.

Society organically responds to issues as they come up and will continue to do so, I’d predict it was the societal norm that murder was a bad thing before Moses transcribed the 10 commandments - in short religion has reacted to societal conditions rather than determined them, it has been a mirror.

The "death of religion" has very little impact on society's evolutionary continuum.

If religion has been used in the past to enable the minority to 'control' the majority western democracy can fulfill the same function today which make religion effectively redundant. The trick (and this is where i agree with you) is to ensure that the path to greater freedoms for society is not manipulated by the few but is determined by the people as a whole.

 

[egb_hibs]

I see you're returning to the debate about whether people can derive a (shared) morality in the absence of religious (near) homogenity, with a side helping of how multi-culturalism equals 'bad'.

before I go any further, i should correct myself. i ought to have said, "specifically, the evidence thus far suggests..."

We have been over this ground before - several times iirc - but your assertion doesnt become true merely by its repetition. I'd contend as before that a shared morality (or ethics) is (are) a product of community (as is religion or at least religious interpretation). Look at whaling for example, which has seen a massive turnaround in public opinion over the last 50 years, not driven by religion - the other major issues of the day - climate change included, none that i can think of are being directly influenced by religion.

I'd say these things are more akin to fashion, which is not to say they are heartfelt. but i doubt people would hold the line on whaling, if it became particularly expedient to abandon it - say if whaling was suddenly to make the nation rich. likewise, i think that what we have holding us together now is quite flimsy; it sort of works while society is wealthy and insulated, but i'm not sure who well it would survive serious strain. And more to the point - we are in the process of having hundreds of laws bestowed on us each year, as it is.

Even the abortion debate has effectively moved beyond the religious.

I don't think it ever was a religious issue, it just suited people to present it that way.

Society organically responds to issues as they come up and will continue to do so, Id predict it was the societal norm that murder was a bad thing before Moses transcribed the 10 commandments - in short religion has reacted to societal conditions rather than determined them, it has been a mirror.

Ok, let's take that and run with it. It changes my point not one iota. Without religion as that mechanism, we need more and more laws in response to issues. Theoretically an alternative to religion might fulfil a similar role - nationalism and, erm, classism, have been attempts to do just that. ditto the deification of reason in revolutionary france. so far these formulas have not proved that effective though, being both volatile, and also needing laws to enforce the new credo.

The "death of religion" has very little impact on society's evolutionary continuum.

you must be joking, the societies where it has happened, are literally disappearing. that this is happening over a timescale of 2 or 3 human lifetimes, so that it can be ignored if one keeps ones head down and doesn't think too hard on it, does not change that fact.

now you don't need religion to correct that; the answer in due course will be more laws. but that you need those laws in the absence of religion is the only point i was making.

If religion has been used in the past to enable the minority to 'control' the majority western democracy can fulfill the same function today which make religion effectively redundant.

you look at this the wrong way around imho. for much more of the time it was a brake on the ruling minority. with the brake removed they provide more and more controlling laws. democracy itself is a brake on this process - we are far from being east germany - but nevertheless, increasingly legalistic we are getting, and i reckon that will only continue as any sense of common values becomes less and less profoundly anchored

The trick (and this is where i agree with you) is to ensure that the path to greater freedoms for society is not manipulated by the few but is determined by the people as a whole.

do you agree that some sort of shared moral deposit is required for this, or do you genuinely believe that a society can spontaneously exist among a collection of atomic individuals, leading life my no lights other than their own?

if so, can you define what you mean by society?

 

[egb_hibs]

i think you and I are agreeing - we are going a certain distance with EGB (we are over-policed, freedom under threat, heading in wrong direction) but stopping short of the giant conspiracy he alleges. I agree that the "3000 laws" is not in itself enough to prove anything (other than a ridiculous addiction to lawmaking) since most of it is just adding noise to the system and hardly being used, at least for the purpose it would have to be to make what EGB says true. I think this does as much to emphasise EGB's libertarian assumptions as anything else. It's just that I don't share them, although they are reasonable.

I think that hibs1986 and your own position here is not at odds with my own; it's just that it only reflects part of the picture - as i see it.

Remember i talked about both the deliberate actors and the hapless fools that pull the roof down on their heads. this is the result of the wreckless dismantling of the fabric of society which proceeds from both sets of people. a large chunk of our ridiculous laws are then the knee jerk bandaids applied to the gaping bloody wounds created.

other stuff meanwhile, is the quite blatant embodiment of ideology in law.