(no subject)

[rowyn]

Somebody please tell me this is a joke.

Please.

Comments

[emilydm.livejournal.com]

Afraid not. It was in today's newspaper here.

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Wow. It boggles the mind! =P

[rafn.livejournal.com]

Mmm... Now there is something that is probably rife with abuse.

[howardtayler.livejournal.com]

The next time my British friends gripe at me about American government, I'm going to ask them to explain that one to me. Wow.

--Howard

[ricdragon.livejournal.com]

Hey.. we don't like it either!

The current goverment seem to like making new laws that are seemingly useless, rather than actually enforcing the laws they actually have (and would work if they were used)

[level-head.livejournal.com]

I had been tracking for some time a proposed British law, defeated a few weeks ago, that would make it a criminal offense to say something negative about any religion.

===|==============/ Level Head

[batratblue.livejournal.com]

No, it's a genu-wine police surveillance state, as opposed to what so many people think America is.

[ricdragon.livejournal.com]

Ah:) the term over here that we're calling it is the 'Nanny State' mainly because they're seeming to restrict the activities of the voting population in the way a nanny restricts the activities of a 2 or 3 year old.

The thinking behind some of it is sound, but the way they're going about it isn't.

Current Goverment is doing well....... at making themselves unpopular

[batratblue.livejournal.com]

I just get really, really fed up with people saying that we are 'turning into a police state!' Sorry, but during every major war the U.S. has been in, various civil rights have been suspended and returned later. That's just wartime. East Germany was a police state. The Soviet Union was a police state. North Korea is a police state. China is a police state. The United States is not even vaguely close.

Always 2 sides to a story

[garyamort.livejournal.com]

There are always 2 sides to every story.

Take the "grass" incident, as the article explains it, it is the same as saying "nark".

So what would you do if every day as you came home, there were 2 or 3 teenagers hanging out on the corner. You see activity that looks like drug dealing, so you call the police. They investigate, but the kids are clean that day(or dumped the drugs as the cops approach).

Now when you walk home tomorro, as you pass them, they start talking about how someone narked on them, giving you dirty looks, and making threatening gestures.

You find someone vandalized your front door while you were away. Every day for a week, they make the comment about narking, and you find some petty vandalism at your house.

You can't prove a thing. But using the ASBO law, you can get them restricted from making comments. And it will get the police to take a closer look at them, maybe swing by the area a bit more frequently.

But oohh, your so evil for having them prohibited from making threatening comments to you which could be completely innocent?

No, I'm gonna say this law doesn't seem so bad. It depends on how it is implemented. I'd probably be scared if it was implemented here, since the courts have a history of not using common sense but strictly obeying the letter of the law. But this is a different country, with different cultures, and I don't know if they have a habit of being too literal or using common sense.

What?!

[krud42.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to not call this law a joke, ever again. I have a notice right here...

';)

Vandalism is a crime

[rowyn]

So throw them in jail for that. If you can't prove that they're vandalizing your house, how can you prove that they're a threat for saying "grass" to you?

Yes, what the kids were doing was unpleasant and threatening. But you have to draw the line on what's really WRONG somewhere, and the British government has drawn the line in ENTIRELY the wrong place. Think of how easy it is to abuse that law. Police officers and judges should NOT have that much discretionary power over citizens. That 87 year-old guy wasn't even accused of threatening anyone, or potentially doing any physical harm to any person. But he's still got a court order prohibiting him from "being sarcastic".

Under the law as written, candidates could get restraining orders against their opposition for "being mean". This is a TERRIBLE law, and ripe for hideous abuses.

Re: What?!

[rowyn]

Thank goodness I don't live in Britain, and this law doesn't apply to me. O.O;;;