POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
For the record, I coined `nixed`first.
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
Plan B wrote:For the record, I coined `nixed`first, no matter what this pedstan says .
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nix - maybe plan b is even older than you.
UK Border Agency ID card system crashes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17943589
UK Border Agency ID card system crashes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17943589
Andrew Tingley, an immigration specialist at law firm Kingsley Napley, said the collapse was "beyond farcical" because many applicants needed to have their permit dealt with on the same day.
"The system that was introduced was not fit for purpose," he said. "It was close to collapse a few weeks ago. It has now collapsed. It's an absolute mess.
"Employers are saying they can't access a reasonable immigration system and they're considering moving abroad. They've come to the point now where they're seriously considering not investing or working in the UK because they can't access any reasonably competent system."
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
jesus. the stasi were never this useless
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ju ... phone-data
The government is to offer a blank cheque to internet and phone firms that will be required to track everyone's email, Twitter, Facebook and other internet use under legislation to be published on Thursday.
The Home Office has confirmed it will foot the bill, thought to run into tens and possibly hundreds of millions, for collecting and storing the extra social media and web browsing records needed to implement the scheme, which critics have dubbed an "online snooper's charter".
-
TruthfulLiar
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:05 am
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
lol bad teeth, government, etc
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
4days wrote:https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nix - maybe plan b is even older than you.
UK Border Agency ID card system crashes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17943589Andrew Tingley, an immigration specialist at law firm Kingsley Napley, said the collapse was "beyond farcical" because many applicants needed to have their permit dealt with on the same day.
"The system that was introduced was not fit for purpose," he said. "It was close to collapse a few weeks ago. It has now collapsed. It's an absolute mess.
"Employers are saying they can't access a reasonable immigration system and they're considering moving abroad. They've come to the point now where they're seriously considering not investing or working in the UK because they can't access any reasonably competent system."
lol the UK
I love quake!
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
another shit IT project, brought to you by UK plc

-
TruthfulLiar
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:05 am
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
well, it makes sense. it's not like it's illegal or anything
as for the ethics of it: that seems to me to be bound up with the larger question about whether it's reasonable to infiltrate protest groups. frankly, spending a fuckload of police time and money to stop some hippies from hanging a banner off a power station doesn't seem like a great way to spend the day
as for the ethics of it: that seems to me to be bound up with the larger question about whether it's reasonable to infiltrate protest groups. frankly, spending a fuckload of police time and money to stop some hippies from hanging a banner off a power station doesn't seem like a great way to spend the day
-
TruthfulLiar
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:05 am
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
Sometimes they seem bored. It depends on the size of the group. Sometimes it seems like police get adrenaline from it. But I think you're partly right... in one sense it seems to be a waste of tax money but then again, it's a small percentage of waste I imagine. Anyhow, some police are wanting a fight though. Once I watched a female officer walk out from her line up to a protester and drag him away from his comrades while beating the living shit out of him. She wouldn't stop either. Took three of her cop-men buddies to pull her away.

But it is a bit fucked up to go have sex with protesters, is it not? I mean, not for either you or me. But for police, for the purpose of infiltration? That's some serious infiltration by proxy penis.
Let's break this down, right quick.
You say:
1. What part of that makes sense? Other than, for me, the not illegal part?
2. You bring up the A. ethics of it, bound up by a larger issue: whether or not it is B. reasonable to infiltrate protest groups in the first place.
First off, ethics is usually the greater concern of the two. In establishing a valid and logical conclusion would you not agree that whether or not something is reasonable is later determined by first whether or not something is ethical?
But let's continue under B. - what I assume is your main point.
i. You raise the point of spending police time and money.
ii. And then you mention that overseeing a protest event by police may not really be a "great way to spend a day"
Does i. not play into A. the ethics as well, or is it isolated to B. whatever is within the bounds of reason?
Keep in mind, my definition of i. time and money are, in a large part, through taxes; so, the people's money.
If what is reasonable is more important, what part of the i. time and money falls into the ethics of your worldview?
Where does ii. fall into place as well? What does this have to do with the ethics or reason of it all? If the feelings of the cops are important, maybe they derive satisfaction from it? It is hard to tell, what do you think they would rather be doing? Sitting in their cars listening to radio and talking doing nothing? What does this have to do with what is reasonable?
What are you concerned with? Ethics? Or what is reasonable, or within reason? If one is within the other, then I am still unsure what you consider reasonable.
I am genuinely confused by your statements. Please clarify.
But it is a bit fucked up to go have sex with protesters, is it not? I mean, not for either you or me. But for police, for the purpose of infiltration? That's some serious infiltration by proxy penis.
Let's break this down, right quick.
You say:
This quote is in response to an article containing the following headline from link provided above: Nick Herbert: "It's important police are allowed to have sex with activists."well, it makes sense. it's not like it's illegal or anything
as for the ethics of it: that seems to me to be bound up with the larger question about whether it's reasonable to infiltrate protest groups. frankly, spending a fuckload of police time and money to stop some hippies from hanging a banner off a power station doesn't seem like a great way to spend the day
1. What part of that makes sense? Other than, for me, the not illegal part?
2. You bring up the A. ethics of it, bound up by a larger issue: whether or not it is B. reasonable to infiltrate protest groups in the first place.
First off, ethics is usually the greater concern of the two. In establishing a valid and logical conclusion would you not agree that whether or not something is reasonable is later determined by first whether or not something is ethical?
But let's continue under B. - what I assume is your main point.
i. You raise the point of spending police time and money.
ii. And then you mention that overseeing a protest event by police may not really be a "great way to spend a day"
Does i. not play into A. the ethics as well, or is it isolated to B. whatever is within the bounds of reason?
Keep in mind, my definition of i. time and money are, in a large part, through taxes; so, the people's money.
If what is reasonable is more important, what part of the i. time and money falls into the ethics of your worldview?
Where does ii. fall into place as well? What does this have to do with the ethics or reason of it all? If the feelings of the cops are important, maybe they derive satisfaction from it? It is hard to tell, what do you think they would rather be doing? Sitting in their cars listening to radio and talking doing nothing? What does this have to do with what is reasonable?
What are you concerned with? Ethics? Or what is reasonable, or within reason? If one is within the other, then I am still unsure what you consider reasonable.
I am genuinely confused by your statements. Please clarify.
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
yeesh, too many subclauses
i'll sum it up for you: while i question the necessity of this particular undercover operation as a whole (and i'm glad the case collapsed), i don't see a problem with an undercover officer having sex with someone from the group they're infiltrating in order to maintain their cover. surely a real ethical issue arises when undercover officers attempt to incite the group they've infiltrated to commit crimes, or worse crimes than the one's they were already planning (which iirc happened in this case)
perhaps you can explain why you think it's not ok
i'll sum it up for you: while i question the necessity of this particular undercover operation as a whole (and i'm glad the case collapsed), i don't see a problem with an undercover officer having sex with someone from the group they're infiltrating in order to maintain their cover. surely a real ethical issue arises when undercover officers attempt to incite the group they've infiltrated to commit crimes, or worse crimes than the one's they were already planning (which iirc happened in this case)
perhaps you can explain why you think it's not ok
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
Some police officers are still cool
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/2208681 ... _hoor.html
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/2208681 ... _hoor.html
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
Officer: "I had to pistol whip him, I was acting on self defense"
Fox 5 : "Ok, lets go to the tape"
Officer: "Say what?"
Oh he's going to get it alright. He's going to get suspended in the for of a payed vacation that is.
Fox 5 : "Ok, lets go to the tape"
Officer: "Say what?"
Oh he's going to get it alright. He's going to get suspended in the for of a payed vacation that is.
- GONNAFISTYA
- Posts: 13369
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
Houston Officer Kills Man In Wheelchair
Don't approach a cop while in a wheelchair and ask for directions and for god's sake don't write down notes, cause he'll shoot you.
lol Texas, etc
lol...cops dunno what to do when someone comes within inches to a foot...so they shoot said someone.A Houston police officer shot and killed a one-armed, one-legged man in a wheelchair Saturday inside a group home after police say the double amputee threatened the officer and aggressively waved a metal object that turned out to be a pen.
Police spokeswoman Jodi Silva said the man cornered the officer in his wheelchair and was making threats while trying to stab the officer with the pen. At the time, the officer did not know what the metal object was that the man was waving, Silva said.
She said the man came "within inches to a foot" of the officer and did not follow instructions to calm down and remain still.
"Fearing for his partner's safety and his own safety, he discharged his weapon," Silva told The Associated Press.
Don't approach a cop while in a wheelchair and ask for directions and for god's sake don't write down notes, cause he'll shoot you.
lol Texas, etc
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
>Fearing for his partner's safety and his own safety
>his partner's safety and his own safety
>safety
not life, notice. just safety
so the obvious decision was to pop a cap in the guy's one-armed and one-legged ass. ffs i bet UK police have to deal with situations like this all the time, and don't have the option of shooting the person in question. they do, however, wear anti-stab vests
american police = trigger-happy pussies
>his partner's safety and his own safety
>safety
not life, notice. just safety
so the obvious decision was to pop a cap in the guy's one-armed and one-legged ass. ffs i bet UK police have to deal with situations like this all the time, and don't have the option of shooting the person in question. they do, however, wear anti-stab vests
american police = trigger-happy pussies
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... terAccount

greatWhile during all his years in custody [Guantanamo Bay prisoner Adnan Farhan Abdul] Latif has never been charged with nor convicted of any crime related to terrorism or any other offence, his death now is made even more tragic due to the fact that he had been recommended for release from Guantanamo by the Department of Defence since as early as 2004, and again in 2007, which said at the time that it had determined that he "is not known to have participated in any combatant/terrorist training". In 2009 a special task force commissioned by the Obama administration also ruled that Latif should be released, a decision which its internal mandates specified could only be reached by the unanimous consensus of all US intelligence agencies. However despite being cleared for release he remained in military custody as a decision had been made not to repatriate any prisoners to Yemen due to ongoing political instability in the country, effectively leaving him and others like him in a state of indefinite detention.
Despite this, Latif fought his own long legal battle through the civilian court system, taking his case all the way to the Supreme Court in order to prove his innocence and win his release. Finally after years of legal challenges in 2010 an order for Latif's immediate release was given by US District Judge Henry Kennedy, who called the allegations against him "unconvincing" and in a 32-page order ruled that the government had failed to provide evidence that Latif had been part of al-Qaeda or any other militant group and ordering it to "take all necessary and appropriate diplomatic steps to facilitate Latif's release forthwith".
Despite this, the Department of Justice successfully appealed the judges' decision, and in a 2-1 ruling that Latif's release order was rescinded; effectively on the grounds that the allegations against him must be taken as accurate if they are claimed to be so by the government.
-
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
- Posts: 14376
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
Ontario’s Crown attorneys will soon be required to report cases where they believe police officers have lied under oath.
The new policy comes after a Star investigation earlier this year that found more than 100 cases of police deception in Ontario and across the country.
The Star also found that Ontario, like most provinces, had no formal mechanism to investigate allegations of police lying in court.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... ce-who-lie
The new policy comes after a Star investigation earlier this year that found more than 100 cases of police deception in Ontario and across the country.
The Star also found that Ontario, like most provinces, had no formal mechanism to investigate allegations of police lying in court.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... ce-who-lie
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/07/police_ ... nto_policePolice drone crashes into police SWAT team
Re: POLICE STATE THREAD!!!...
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/30/miami_o ... ing_stare/New cell phone footage shows Miami-Dade Police officers aggressively pinning an unarmed teen to the ground while choking him. His alleged crime: giving the officers “dehumanizing stares” and “clenching his fists.” The 14-year-old was allegedly carrying a puppy when officers wrestled him to the ground.
...
McMillan says he obeyed orders, and was leading the officers towards his mother when they jumped him. The teen adds that he was holding and feeding his puppy at the time, who got injured during the encounter. Miami-Dade Police Detective Alvaro Zabaleta justified the use of force, saying McMillan was exhibiting threatening “body language,” which includes “clenched fists.” McMillan adamantly denies this charge because, well, he was holding a puppy.
[size=85][color=#0080BF]io chiamo pinguini![/color][/size]
