Political Crossfire Forums

thundertaker

So it appears SOCA, unlike the police and armed forces, will NOT be swearing the oath of allegiance to the crown, and will be directly answerable to the home secratary. I fear for the impartiality of this 'law enforcement' agency as an independent entity as opposed to a mere tool of the government.
This agency as it stands looks as if it is directly designed to enforce the political agenda of the Labour party, as opposed to the law.

Even the f***ing logo looks like something out of 1984:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4107877.stm

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 6954 Location: Herefordshire

Yeah, this is laughable. This government just won't quit being awful - just look at this along with the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill for example. Its getting beyond parody.

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 6954 Location: Herefordshire

And ID Cards of course, those dirty badges of serfdom:

thundertaker · Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:15 am Post subject:

The depressing thing is, the even if the Tories win the election, they're not going to repeal any of the totalitarian legislation that New Labour has lumbered us with. What kind of government volountarily surrenders power? New Labour is a wicked organisation, and the Conservatives aren't pro-active enough in fundamentally opposing this destruction of our civil liberties......

I'm starting to come round to the view that we really are f****d......

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:49 am Post subject:

The conservatives and labour share the same ideology and the lib dems are incompitient.

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 6954 Location: Herefordshire

thefranzkafkafront wrote: The conservatives and labour share the same ideology and the lib dems are incompitient.

Thats just wrong.

The Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems share the same ideology, and are incompetent

antonio62 · Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject:

We'd be better off if the Lib Dems got in power at least they don't support any of the totalitarian stuff that Labour has enacted. They'd probably get rid of some of it as well hopefully.

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 6954 Location: Herefordshire

antonio62 wrote: We'd be better off if the Lib Dems got in power

Someone needs a special escorted bus trip to the "seaside" with a comment like that methinks :lol:

antonio62 · Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:02 pm Post subject:

Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: We'd be better off if the Lib Dems got in power

Someone needs a special escorted bus trip to the "seaside" with a comment like that methinks :lol:

Their better than labour and the Tory's when it comes to freedon and liberty and the rest of the policies are the same so we would be better with them than Labour or Conservative.

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 6954 Location: Herefordshire

antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: We'd be better off if the Lib Dems got in power

Someone needs a special escorted bus trip to the "seaside" with a comment like that methinks :lol:

Their better than labour and the Tory's when it comes to freedon and liberty and the rest of the policies are the same so we would be better with them than Labour or Conservative.

How are the lib dems better when it comes to freedom? Lib Dem grassroots are even more socialist than Labour a lot of the time. If you care about british liberty at the next general election you'll spoil your ballot with a carefully placed "none of the above"

Lord Hargreaves · Joined: 05 Oct 2004 Posts: 6954 Location: Herefordshire

BTW heres what Peter Hitchens posted on his blog a couple of days ago:

Quote: Why on earth would Britain need an FBI? We are not a vast continental empire of 50 states, each with their own different legal systems. We are a small, compact island nation made up of small counties, and the only legal division is between us and Scotland, and causes very little difficulty to anyone.

What evidence there is shows that small. local police forces, not grandiose agencies and state militias, are the most effective and efficient at protecting the people from crime. But perhaps the new Serious and Organised Crime Agency is not about protecting the people, but intended to protect the state. There's certainly no reason to suppose it will make us any safer.

Despite all those G-man movies and the best efforts of a powerful PR machine, the fabled FBI isn't actually that brilliant as a crime-fighting organisation in the US. What's more, it isn't 'organised' crime that affects most of us. It's unorganised, even disorganised crime, the swaying drunk who threatens us on the way home, teenager in the playground selling drugs to our children, the whey-faced, drugged-out punk on the late train, with his feet on the seats, the knife in his pocket and the merciless look in his blank eyes. It's the light tinkle of glass in the small hours, as the burglar climbs in. It's the shape that steps up behind us as we try to use the cash machine late in the evening. It's the gang in the once-peaceful park, swearing and smoking dope amid a ring of burger boxes and lager cans. It's the crooked, intimidatory gangs that rule on the rough estates and the tattooed men who beat their female 'partners' to a pulp. That's the crime we need to deal with.

Authority regards it as 'trivial' because authority, by and large, never experiences it. What's more, it's not the supply of drugs that needs to be stopped, but the demand, endlessly fed by a feeble law, feebly enforced by police who are always demanding to be 'freed up' (why not 'freed down' by the way?), for some unknown but allegedly more important task. We do not need, or want a 'Serious Organised Crimes Agency'.

All those journalists who have puffed this new organisation as if it were some kind of saviour ought to be ashamed of themselves. This is a nasty foreign body, the first time in our history we have had a central, government-controlled national police, run directly by the state, with powers of arrest. Unlike proper police officers, Its members are not required to swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen - and to the law. That oath is important as it allows - nay, obliges - sworn officers to refuse an unlawful order from a superior. You will have no idea how important this difference is, until it's gone.

SOCA's 'agents' as they grandly style themselves, are civil servants, under the control of the government of the day In the wrong hands such a body could be the nucleus of a KGB or a Securitate, and its crummy symbol of a leaping cat is just the kind of thing such an organisation would like to have. It's not just that we don't need it. We need not to have it.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/04/how_about_a_tri.html

antonio62 · Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:25 am Post subject:

Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: We'd be better off if the Lib Dems got in power

Someone needs a special escorted bus trip to the "seaside" with a comment like that methinks :lol:

Their better than labour and the Tory's when it comes to freedon and liberty and the rest of the policies are the same so we would be better with them than Labour or Conservative.

How are the lib dems better when it comes to freedom? Lib Dem grassroots are even more socialist than Labour a lot of the time. If you care about british liberty at the next general election you'll spoil your ballot with a carefully placed "none of the above"

They have always voted against anything things like ID cards and detention without trial. There are even plenty of them who support legalising cannabis. On social freedoms they are most definitely better than the other two. There economic policies are essentially the same as the other two maybe slightly more extreme but I would rather have them than Labour or Conservatives in power.