Is Britain becoming a police state under Labour?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 2:19 pm

Police given powers to enter homes and tear down anti-Olympics posters during Games | Mail Online

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:31 am

oscar;1224159 wrote: Police given powers to enter homes and tear down anti-Olympics posters during Games | Mail Online

Can you imagine the reaction of new labour if the tories had done something like that? Never mind go5die boy will be unemployed soon and whatever next it can't be as bad-mind you I thought that about maggie thatcher. You realise if there is a massive swing to the SNP in scotland labour are finished as a viable political party-at the least for a few years.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:19 am

If true, it's outrageous. However, it is the Mail we're talking about. I suspect exaggeration/distortion at the least.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:49 am

Clodhopper;1224325 wrote: If true, it's outrageous. However, it is the Mail we're talking about. I suspect exaggeration/distortion at the least.
I actually stole the article from another forum and going by some of the posts, it appears to be true.

Can you empty your pm box Clod?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:56 am

gmc;1224315 wrote: Can you imagine the reaction of new labour if the tories had done something like that? Never mind go5die boy will be unemployed soon and whatever next it can't be as bad-mind you I thought that about maggie thatcher. You realise if there is a massive swing to the SNP in scotland labour are finished as a viable political party-at the least for a few years. You don't want to make that bet again do you? Remember Glenrothes? Having said that, I do agree with you that I also think there will be a large swing to the SNP in the election.

I find it ironic that the country fears the BNP gaining stelth yet we seem to be moving further towards a police state akin to Zimbabwe under this government. Yes, your right, can you image the outrage if the Tories wanted similar?

I just can not see this proposal working with all the human rights laws. Surely to enter some-one's home without a warrant and remove property is a breach of human rights?

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:57 am

What do you mean BECOMING a police state ? It IS a police state, bowing down to Europe - yes sir, no sir, how high shall I jump sir?

:-5 :-5 :-5

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:58 am

G#Gill;1224334 wrote: What do you mean BECOMING a police state ? It IS a police state, bowing down to Europe - yes sir, no sir, how high shall I jump sir?

:-5 :-5 :-5 have you heard the latest Gill?......... under EU laws, they will do away with trial by Jury.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:03 am

On the EU: remember that the EU has completely succeeded in its main purpose - no war in Europe. The period of peace since the end of WW2 is the longest that Europe has known in recorded history. In my opinion, as one who has not had to fight in a major war, that's worth a lot.

Not saying the EU is perfect - far from it - but it's not all bad.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:05 am

oscar;1224333 wrote: You don't want to make that bet again do you? Remember Glenrothes? Having said that, I do agree with you that I also think there will be a large swing to the SNP in the election.

I find it ironic that the country fears the BNP gaining stelth yet we seem to be moving further towards a police state akin to Zimbabwe under this government. Yes, your right, can you image the outrage if the Tories wanted similar?

I just can not see this proposal working with all the human rights laws. Surely to enter some-one's home without a warrant and remove property is a breach of human rights?

I would think that that would be theft, plain and simple! Or even robbery, if it was done in a threatening manner - like it probably would be. However, I bet there will be a 'law' brought out to cover those actions. You just know that there is no such thing any more as 'freedom of speech'. :-5:-5

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:09 am

Clodhopper;1224339 wrote: On the EU: remember that the EU has completely succeeded in its main purpose - no war in Europe. The period of peace since the end of WW2 is the longest that Europe has known in recorded history. In my opinion, as one who has not had to fight in a major war, that's worth a lot.

Not saying the EU is perfect - far from it - but it's not all bad.
Clod........ empty your pm box please.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:11 am

G#Gill;1224342 wrote: I would think that that would be theft, plain and simple! Or even robbery, if it was done in a threatening manner - like it probably would be. However, I bet there will be a 'law' brought out to cover those actions. You just know that there is no such thing any more as 'freedom of speech'. :-5:-5
Wonder if they will cover their collar numbers as in the G20 protest?

Do you know what Winston Churchill once said?

'When fascism returns, it will be in the form of anti-fascism'

Never a true word eh?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:11 am

Have done so.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:12 am

Clodhopper;1224346 wrote: Have done so. Sending you a message....... have missed you :-4

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:17 am

oscar;1224336 wrote: have you heard the latest Gill?......... under EU laws, they will do away with trial by Jury.

Yes, I read about that. It disgusts me. We MUST get out of the European clutches, THEY ARE DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY. Our judicial system used to be the envy of the world, and a system that other countries tried to adopt for themselves. It will not be in the public's interest to 'do away' with juries. To leave deciding a verdict to one person is too much responsibility for that one person, and would increase the risk of corruption. This is insanity IMO. I have run out of emotions here !

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:18 am

oscar;1224333 wrote: You don't want to make that bet again do you? Remember Glenrothes? Having said that, I do agree with you that I also think there will be a large swing to the SNP in the election.

I find it ironic that the country fears the BNP gaining stelth yet we seem to be moving further towards a police state akin to Zimbabwe under this government. Yes, your right, can you image the outrage if the Tories wanted similar?

I just can not see this proposal working with all the human rights laws. Surely to enter some-one's home without a warrant and remove property is a breach of human rights?

I'm not so sure actually snp councils are proving to be just as big a bunch of tossers as labour ones.

posted by oscar

have you heard the latest Gill?......... under EU laws, they will do away with trial by Jury.

I wouldn't worry about it-other nation are just as wary of the eu as us. The european courts have done some good-just ask all the part timers that had their pension rights restored and all the women who will benefit from councils being forced to pay women at the same rate as the men for the same job. Mind you all the men are now going out on strike because they don't want their wages to drop. meanwhile gordie boy is squeezing every penny out the economy while there is still any left to pay for it all and will probably be out of office so he can defend all the public sector workers who are sooner or later going to lose their pensions. Too bad he didn't pay attention to arithmetic when he was at school. The banks are raking it in again so that means everything is going to be OK. I see the new labour manifesto for the next election will be called it wasn't us it was them.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:09 am

Clodhopper;1224339 wrote: On the EU: remember that the EU has completely succeeded in its main purpose - no war in Europe.

Do you truly believe that without the advent of the EU, not very long ago, that there would have been another war in Europe? I, for one, most certainly do not believe such a thing.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:27 am

Bill: Yes, I do. Main purpose of EU is to stop (in particular) France and Germany going to war as they have done at regular intervals for centuries: since the Napoleonic Wars, 1871, 1914, 1939 and since 1945, peace. Not a coincidence that we were taken into the EU by people who had fought in WW2, imo.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:36 am

Taken from Google:

The European Iron and Steel Community (EISC) is seen by many as the start of the process that led to the European Union. The European Iron and Steel Community was proposed by Robert Schuman and Jean Monet and came into being in 1951.

By 1950, many parts of war torn Western Europe had many a good recovery from the devastating impact of World War Two. The primary reason for this recovery was the money provided to Western Europe by the Marshall Plan. Marshall believed that a financially and economically secure Western Europe would not fall to communism and that the region would become a major trading partner with America. Marshall’s optimism for Western Europe was not fully shared by many in France. There was a general feeling in France that the region would still once again be dominated by West Germany if the right opportunities occurred. Therefore, there was a chance of West Germany threatening France once more in the future.

Schuman and Monet set about to find a way of tying France and West Germany closer together so that the very thought of one threatening the other receded into the past. They proposed that the iron and steel industries of Western Europe should be linked under a

“Common High Authority in an organisation open to all other countries.”

There had been some economic co-operation between Germany and France before World War Two and there was a desire to restore this after the war.

France had a very good economic reason for putting her weight behind the project as West Germany’s coal and steel production was rapidly expanding. What was to become the EISC gave France a lever into this growth. The political climate of the time did not allow West Germany to dominate any new organisation and the only country that could fill this role was France. The French rightly gauged that the United Kingdom would not join an organisation that required any member to effectively hand over control of their iron and steel industry to an external body.

While the UK wanted to maintain its own grip on its iron and steel industries, this was not so in mainland Western Europe. Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg all saw the value of greater European integration if future conflict was to be eradicated. These nations joined the discussions and in 1951 the Treaty of Paris was signed.

The Treaty of Paris set up the European Iron and Steel Community with France, West Germany, Italy and the Benelux nations all joining. The treaty had three main points:

1) There would be one market for coal and steel products of the six member nations with an end to custom duties between them.

2) The EISC would be under the control of the ‘High Authority’. Jean Monet was the first president of the Authority.

3) The treaty also established a Council of Ministers, a Parliamentary Assembly and a Court of Justice.

The logic of the EISC was to ensure that the member states within it had a regular supply of iron and steel and that the cost of each product was affordable. However, profit was not seen as a dirty word as money was needed to keep the EISC constantly modernised. The leaders of the EISC also believed that the organisation had to expand if it was to develop. What was to be a major economic development in Europe also led to a major rival to the UK’s iron and steel industry. Such rivalry almost certainly added to the anti-Europe sentiment that existed in the UK at the time – one that was to be identified and picked up by Charles de Gaulle.

Pretty clear that people in both France and Germany recognised a serious risk of war in the future UNLESS they created a situation where self interest made war impossible. The EU is the result, but it started with the iron and steel agreement in 1951.

ps: the article is badly written, but the basic facts are correct, as far as I can tell.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:38 am

Clodhopper;1224370 wrote: Bill: Yes, I do.

Well, I am astounded. There are many other very significant reasons that IMO far outweigh the existance of the "EU" in preventing war in Europe.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:39 am

Bill Sikes;1224375 wrote: Well, I am astounded. There are many other very significant reasons that IMO far outweigh the existance of the "EU" in preventing war in Europe.

Yes like nato and both france and britain having their own nuclear deterrent.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:48 am

Bill: I'm sure there are other factors, but the existence of the EU is the main one. Certainly fear of future wars was a major factor in the creation of what is now the EU, and since it was set up there has been no war between member states. Before it was set up warfare in Europe was a regular occurrance - heck, America was largely colonised by people fleeing endemic European war!

FUBAR · Post by **FUBAR** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:40 pm

I don't think the EU halted any conflict in Europe. It was more the fear of Russia that stopped inter Europe wars. They spent most of the time watching the old Warsaw pact rather then arming against each other. It was more a case of my enemies enemy is my friend than anything else. NATO kept the peace not the EU..:yh_flag:yh_peace

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:27 pm

Well, the French and Germans started the EU going DELIBERATELY to reduce the chances of a future war between them - both countries saw that as a real future risk. France has been at best a lukewarm NATO member, but a driving force behind the EU. And there has been no war in Europe since.

Bear in mind that France does not trust the US - or the UK - very much at all. It seems to me that France saw very little difference between the US and the USSR in terms of being dominated - they resented both. There was a current of feeling in Britain at the end of the war that was very similar - there was a feeling that the US treated Britain as a defeated enemy - but it was realised that the US was the new superpower and was preferred to the Soviets, who the British had been dealing with for some time. France in particular was trying to create a power bloc that would counterbalance American interest and regarded the UK as an American puppet, which is why De Gaulle vetoed British entry.

I don't deny that NATO helped prevent war in Europe, but NATO was an anti soviet measure. As soviet power has vanished, NATO is less and less relevant. The EU, with its principle of "ever closer union" is meant to be permanent. If NATO was THE cause of peace in Europe since WW2 I would expect, as NATO becomes less and less relevant, the risk of a major European war to increase. Don't see it at present. Thank the Lord.

What is absolutely definite is that the period of peace in Europe since WW2 is the longest in recorded history. That's 2,000 or so years.

From the website "Europa".

9 May 1950 — Robert Schuman presents a plan for deeper cooperation.

(Video: 704 Kb - 28 s) A peaceful Europe – the beginnings of cooperation

The European Union is set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in the Second World War. As of 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community begins to unite European countries economically and politically in order to secure lasting peace. The six founders are Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The 1950s are dominated by a cold war between east and west. Protests in Hungary against the Communist regime are put down by Soviet tanks in 1956; while the following year, 1957, the Soviet Union takes the lead in the space race, when it launches the first man-made space satellite, Sputnik 1. Also in 1957, the Treaty of Rome creates the European Economic Community (EEC), or ‘Common Market’.

(my bold)

It is quite definite that the EU was largely set up to prevent European war. I think it has succeeded.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:45 am

FUBAR;1224705 wrote: I don't think the EU halted any conflict in Europe. It was more the fear of Russia that stopped inter Europe wars. They spent most of the time watching the old Warsaw pact rather then arming against each other. It was more a case of my enemies enemy is my friend than anything else. NATO kept the peace not the EU..:yh_flag:yh_peace

Russia is actually part of europe. nato played a part but the eu also played a part as well that and the fact that two generations of warfare had the populations with little inclination to let their governments get away with starting another. It was the wartime generation that took us in to the EU after a referendum much to the surprise of those who were opposed to it and which fact nowadays they like to forget as well as the reality that most of our trade is with the EU. The voters are not as stupid as politicians like to think we are.

The biggest threat we have to our democracy is a system where a party with less than 35% of the votes gets 100% of the power. We had it under thatcher and now we have it with new labour and just look at where we are now.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:56 am

gmc;1224962 wrote: It was the wartime generation that took us in to the EU after a referendum

You keep on saying that. No, they did not. They voted on the "EEC", which was not the same thing. Stop spreading and trying to propogate lies.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:58 am

You mean American military bases in Europe didn't prevent the wars? That's the consensus on this side.

Can we have them back, please? We could use the money it would save.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:43 am

Accountable;1224984 wrote: You mean American military bases in Europe didn't prevent the wars? That's the consensus on this side.

Can we have them back, please? We could use the money it would save.

The US bases stayed because of fears about russia and germany was a conquered nation. Why did you keep the bases in okinawa and all the ones you got through lend lease-it wasn''t to protect anyone's interests but your own. Come to that what about all the bases in the middle east why not pull them back? I'm not saying they didn't help prevent warfare with russia. Americans seem to believe they won ww2 on their own and saved the world for democracy. it's actually a Hollywood perpetuated myth like the one that no one else fought the Japanese. there were five British aircraft carriers at Okinawa for instance but you never see them get a mention.

posted by bill sikes

You keep on saying that. No, they did not. They voted on the "EEC", which was not the same thing. Stop spreading and trying to propogate lies.

OK strictly speaking you are correct but people at the time were well aware of where it was likely to lead. closer ties to europe and the creation of an economic and political grouping was what most were voting for. We're still arguing about the detail but this notion that all the nationalities will accept subservience to a monolithic detached European parliament that they have no control over is silly. We paid a heavy price for not getting involved in the early years and will pay a heavy price if we don't get involved and will still have to obey eu laws whether we like it or not. Most people realise tght which is why UKIP is still a fringe party.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:22 am

Acc: Your bases in England were there to counter the Warsaw Pact, not prevent France and Germany going to war again! I don't deny that NATO helped - any organisation that pulled the European nations together did so - but it wasn't the purpose of NATO in the way that it was and is the major purpose of the EU.

The morons of UKIP won't admit this for reasons known only to their tiny minds. They prefer to get all upset about straight bananas and tomatoes being fruit.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:57 pm

gmc;1225075 wrote: The US bases stayed because of fears about russia and germany was a conquered nation. Why did you keep the bases in okinawa and all the ones you got through lend lease-it wasn''t to protect anyone's interests but your own. Come to that what about all the bases in the middle east why not pull them back? I'm not saying they didn't help prevent warfare with russia. Americans seem to believe they won ww2 on their own and saved the world for democracy. it's actually a Hollywood perpetuated myth like the one that no one else fought the Japanese. there were five British aircraft carriers at Okinawa for instance but you never see them get a mention.You'll get no argument from me on any of that. I spent 10 years in Okinawa and never knew about the Brit carriers. Must've been really long to launch those bi-planes.

Clodhopper;1225119 wrote: Acc: Your bases in England were there to counter the Warsaw Pact, not prevent France and Germany going to war again! I don't deny that NATO helped - any organisation that pulled the European nations together did so - but it wasn't the purpose of NATO in the way that it was and is the major purpose of the EU.

The morons of UKIP won't admit this for reasons known only to their tiny minds. They prefer to get all upset about straight bananas and tomatoes being fruit.My post was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but we don't have a tongue-in-cheek smiley.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:02 pm

Clodhopper;1225119 wrote: Acc: Your bases in England were there to counter the Warsaw Pact, not prevent France and Germany going to war again! I don't deny that NATO helped - any organisation that pulled the European nations together did so - but it wasn't the purpose of NATO in the way that it was and is the major purpose of the EU.

That something "was and is the major purpose of the EU" doesn't meen that the EU is responsible. What *is* responsible is (in no particular order) the lack of political will; the lack of resource; the lack of perceived need; the study of history; NATO; the "nuclear deterrent", "Modern Times", etc., etc., etc. There has not been a major war *anywhere* since WWII involving "first world" nations - is this all down to the "EU"? No, because the thought that the existence of the "EU" has prevented war is absolute poppycock.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:16 pm

posted by accountable

You'll get no argument from me on any of that. I spent 10 years in Okinawa and never knew about the Brit carriers. Must've been really long to launch those bi-planes.

Says it all doesn't it. As ever only too happy to expand your knowledge.

Don't knock the bi-planes they took out the italian fleet at taranto ( that's what gave the japanese the idea of attacking pearl harbour) and cape matapan got the bismarck and took out 22 U-boats- both the Americans and Japanese learned carrier operations from the British.

Fairey Swordfish aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945

posted by bill sikes

That something "was and is the major purpose of the EU" doesn't meen that the EU is responsible. What *is* responsible is (in no particular order) the lack of political will; the lack of resource; the lack of perceived need; the study of history; NATO; the "nuclear deterrent", "Modern Times", etc., etc., etc. There has not been a major war *anywhere* since WWII involving "first world" nations - is this all down to the "EU"? No, because the thought that the existence of the "EU" has prevented war is absolute poppycock.

What was behind it was the desire to create political structures that would help prevent future wars in europe by bringing closer ties. You are correct in that there are other factors but the eu was a manifestation of that just as the eastern european countries lining up to join do so as much from a desire for peace and prosperity.

As to there being no major wars anywhere involving first world countries the i suppose compared to ww1 and ww2 korea, vietnam, kenya, malaysia, afghanistan, oman. yemen, suez, algeria, french indo china, iraq and Afghanistan etc ete are minor but there are pretty major events for those involved on all sides.

The UN was intended to prevent war but to do that it needs commitment to the idea from all sides. The eu had that commitment from the member nations so your claim that the claim that the eu has prevented war is poppycock is in itself verging on poppycock, or even tommyrot, but perhaps not complete poppycock.

Mind you the eu is by no means perfect but opting out like ukip want just means we are still lumbered but with no say.

Mind you if Tony Blair (imagine, if you would, a smiley throwing up) gets to be president I might be tempted to join ukip in protest. Says it all doesn't it-that anyone in new labour can actually think that might be a good idea. It's like they live in a fantasy britian where they believe they are still popular and we all think they are wonderful.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:24 pm

Sorry to spin off track...... Do you know what Sporran? There are times in my life when I can only admire your knowledge of history. And, no, I'm not being sarcky.

carry On.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:27 pm

Just to close the loop:

Kamikaze: The Story of the British Pacific Fleet

edited by Stuart Eadon