Linux Format logo

Hello, Orwellian World

Using the UK's Terrorism Act, some people have been arrested at the University of Nottingham. That's pretty worrying by itself if you ask me, but let's assume for a moment that those two did something really suspicious and had to be picked up. Now check out this quote from Superintendent Simon Nickless of the Nottinghamshire police: "Feedback is that people accept that this is the sort of operation that is necessary and reasonable for the welfare of communities."

OK, so he's saying that people are telling him it's OK to arrest folk under dodgy terrorism laws. Again, we're going to carry on assuming that the two arrested people were suspicious and needed to be arrested. Here's the really scary part:

Jonathan Ray, a spokesman for the university, said the institution "has been co-operating fully from the outset throughout this inquiry".

He went on: "Nottinghamshire Police have stressed that there is no risk to the university community or to the wider public. Here, at the institution, we fully accept that this sort of police operation is necessary and reasonable for the welfare of our communities."

The moral of this story seems simple: say what the nice policeman says, or get arrested.


Your comments

Have those people been

Have those people been charged with anything? Probably not!
The last time I had words with a policeman was to tell him to grow up, and he was a Chief Constable :roll: ;-)

Ah, you must tell us the

Ah, you must tell us the rest of that story now Towy! :-)

M

Maybe the copper didn't have

Maybe the copper didn't have the vocabulary to express himself and was copying the words of the university spokesman?
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/01/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation

Perhaps I'm being thick but

Perhaps I'm being thick but I don't get the point of this statement 'The moral of this story seems simple: say what the nice policeman says, or get arrested.' even after reading the story.

Yes the Anti Terrorism Act was questionable because as always, anti-terrorist legislation is always going to affect our civil liberties - it's a balance.

I see no information in the story or this post that lead me to believe that these two students weren't detained without a reason. Fortunately I don't believe we hold people without reasonable suspicion.

I say again, am I missing the point? If so please do explain.

Paul: I'm right behind you.

Paul:
I'm right behind you. It's reassuring that you bring the issue forward
and that you speak for basic human rights.

Jon: reread the police

Jon: reread the police officer's quote, then read the last sentence of the university spokeman's quote.

Jon have a look at

Jon
have a look at http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/6-free-speech/s44-terrorism-act/index.shtml

Assuming that the two were

Assuming that the two were "suspicious and needed to be arrested" (your words), why is it "really scary" that the university authorities cooperated with the police in bringing them to justice?

Sounds like they were acting responsibly.

Anyway, the whole story is a

Anyway, the whole story is a fabrication.

Are you telling me that in an organisation such as the Police, whose job is to nick people, that they have "Superintendent Nick-less" running the show? Pull the other one!

Tel: the "suspicious and

Tel: the "suspicious and needed to be arrested" part was there as an assumption to avoid arguing that particular point. As others have said above, the law is dangerous; I'm not here to argue about laws, so I dispensed with the problem - they might have been suspicious and they might not have been, but the point of the post was to comment on the words of the police officer and the university spokesman.

A similar example: the video at <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7404185.stm" rel="nofollow">this location</a> makes me wants laws along the lines of being able to shoot folk who beat police officers while they lie prone on the ground, but from a media perspective I find the video fascinating - massive public disorder and violence is perfectly fine to show, but the audio gets ducked in places because of swearing.

Naw, your argument still

Naw, your argument still sucks.

If these guys were suspicious and needed to be arrested (which is your working assumption), then it is only right that they were indeed arrested on suspicion. Fair play to the university for doing the "right things", rather than the "rights thing".

What you need is a few weeks in China, where they really know how to repress dissidents. After that, you'll be longing for libertarian Britain.

Thank-you for explaining it

Thank-you for explaining it more Paul. In the BBC article it does not explain on what grounds they were arrested, or what they were doing to warrant their arrest. It only says under what law, although not what section, they were arrested.

So my assumption was that they must have warranted arrest under this law. But the circumstances around their arrest aren't seemingly disclosed properly. Is this the issue?

Apart from a general misuse of our laws such as ASBOs for elderly people and other stupid perversions of the purpose of our laws. That's a wider issue.



Web hosting by UKFast