Tuesday, March 24, 2009

London Liberty is falling down my fair lady.

London liberty is falling down,
falling down, falling down.
London liberty is falling down- we're not far behind.
oh right.
ring around the rosey, pocket full of posey,
ashes ashes- we all fall down.

UK has new pending/inacted social laws- aka. curfews- so what? you say, we have em too, yeah.... we do.

This is a post of excerpts, along with some of my personal commentary- bringing the info right to your eyes, got it all down, ask em- you curious?

DON'T GET CAUGHT READING(that'll be next- 'good idea skippy!')!

In particular I think that reading the responces on the page can be incredibly beneficial. Here's one I found to be particuarly interesting.

#8 posted by Takuan , March 21, 2009 1:42 AM
is there some way that the logical culmination of this can be headed off? Every indication in the press shows Britain heading for a summer of rage - and every action by the government seems calculated to incite this. It's obvious they want violence so they can have some killings and thereby justify even more heavy-handed repression. When will it be enough for them? Even now, someone is walking and breathing and slated for execution by police bullet or club in a few months time. This is like watching a slow motion car wreck and being helpless to stop the planned and inevitable. What kind of people can be party to this?

This is an important point, a failed justification of curfew? yes.- and still, an INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT POINT.

Statement: #24 posted by Shukketsushi , March 21, 2009 3:34 AM
well in the US kids under 18 have a curfew of like around 11 thats changes from town to town. 9 is def too early but i mean those are kids that go to school so what are they gunna be doing out at midnight anyway. i dont think of this law as being a big deal seeing as towns in the US have similar laws and its only for kids. its not like they have to be home. just not hanging out in the streets.

Responce: Who's to define too early? Who's to define the greater good- what the hell is that anyways? The law's not a bit deal because BECAUSE the US has similar laws? Bad reason for it to not be a big deal. What if it weren't only for kids? Oh you're right, if kids ARE going to be violent and bloody- let them do it in more private places- jeez we don't want to see the drugs, sex, and violence.

#53 posted by MadFist , March 21, 2009 8:07 AM
This is NEW to London?!? Hell, I live in Norman, Oklahoma and can remember requiring special permission to go to the Rocky Horror Picture Show at Midnight. . . 25 years ago!

We can only wonder what happens next: To quote a fellow, quoting HP.
"Educational Decree No. 98: Those wishing to join the Inquisitorial Squad for extra credit may sign up in the High Inquisitor's Office..." -- Imelda Staunton as the voice of "Dolores Jane Umbridge in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Here's one thing that's going on- one more little tiny thing- one step towards making crackdown easy. Like boiling a frog slowly, if you do it carefully enough it won't notice, ever, especially because it explodes.potential for stripping away the right to photograph in public

Can't help but make you think of a poem often cited in situations similiar to this (I urge you to go back and read my post regarding fear- it is not as comprehensive as I would like it to be- but it's something that ought to be known. OldFebBlog "the jacket may not seem too tight now but if you do not fight now, someday it maybe a fight just to breathe")

"Why is Free Speech so important?...Why speak up about things that don't seem to affect you?"
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

A further point made by an Austrailian individual (not that locality is important or decisive about anything)- this law is not only action against kids out past nine, it's a doorway to attack further liberties.

#26 posted by Joe in Australia , March 21, 2009 3:48 AM
It's not a curfew for under-16s. Well it is, but it's more than that.

Here's the relevant legislation: Part 4 Dispersal of groups etc.
30 Dispersal of groups and removal of persons under 16 to their place of residence

It's got two parts. One provides for a curfew for under-16s. One provides for the dispersal of groups. The groups need not, as far as I can see, be comprised of people under 16. You might have, let's say, a married couple in their forties walking down the street. A constable (police officer) or a "community support officer" (not a police officer, but they get to wear a uniform) hears the couple arguing and tells them to:
1) Disperse immediately (that is, separate and don't get back together);
2) Leave the area;
3) Keep out of the area for 24 hours.

It seems to me that the constable or community support officer will have acted quite legally.

The test is whether the C-or-CSO has "reasonable grounds" [...]

Someone approaches a C-or-CSO and says "Officer, that black man over there scares me. What's he doing in my neighbourhood. We're decent people, we are, we don't need the likes of him hanging around." Now, in a better world the police officer would say "I'm sorry, I can't arrest someone just on the vicious xenophobic rantings of an idiot like yourself, sir." With the help of the Act, this has changed. As long as the man in question is part of a "group" - that is, two or more people - the C-or-CSO can tell that man (and not necessarily any other members of his group) to leave the area for up to 24 hours. And it seems to me that the officer will be acting entirely lawfully, because the fact that the person "alarmed or distressed" is a total nutter doesn't change the fact that a subjective feeling is sufficient to trigger the Act.

"#33 posted by chipy , March 21, 2009 5:30 AM
So, no fun flash mobs - no political demonstrations, no meeting of two or more people for whatever reason. There are a number of Embassies and "public squares" in this area. [...]."

An important note to make, an important question to ask is- why are these kids doing bad stuff, seems to me that the problem stems else where from an injustice to the Liberty that the people of this world deserve.

"#37 posted by Anonymous , March 21, 2009 6:05 AM
Hey England, between your ubiquitous security cameras, your draconian civil rights laws, your antiquated (powerless) monarchy, and your police-state mentality, you let us know how well your little experiment with fascism goes, maybe you'll get lucky, cause you know noone elses fascist state has failed or anything..."

What ever happened to freedom of movement and assembly- what is this New Facist America, I mean.... Old Germany?
You're going to argue that the state has restrictions on other societal funtions- like drivers licenses, etc etc. well, "Should the state consider those under-18[anyone] as second-class citizens?" It's not the function of government to have all of these regulations- it is against all that is good, in government.

The following is a correspondence unrelated to me:
A: Should we allow groups of unsupervised 10 year-olds out on the streets at 3am? Where do YOU draw the line, or do you think that there should be no line at all.

Q: Who is the "we" in that question? Do you mean the state, or the parents? Or do you fancy yourself the parent of other people's kids?

and then we realize
"#93 posted by Drowse , March 21, 2009 12:38 PM
Dallas is considering a day-time curfew to try to stamp out truancy rates.
I don't think its an effective measure, just make school more appealing to people."

Not only is this just an example of the same kinds of laws that are continuously passed but, it's bs to solving the issues.

So- the real message here, isn't just that the government is trying to fix a problem though inefficient liberty ridding soulutions- it is that the Government is completely out of line, stop it.

No comments:

Post a Comment