IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Man faces jail for " incest" Simpsons cartoons
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Jim |
For example, do you remember the guy that caught the video images of the Met cop killing Ian Tomlinson? Two weeks earlier the Commissioner had flatly denied any contact between the Met and Ian Tomlinson. The IPCC weren't even investigating. The cops had managed to persuade the Coroner's Office to hire a dodgy pathologist who found that he had died of a heart attack and, surprise surprise, the conclusion had leaked out into the media, even as the police themselves, who normally wouldn't be allowed to see it, were showing only a redacted copy to the family, the primary beneficiaries of such a report.
Now it turns out this passing merchant banker happened to have the whole thing on video. He went to The Guardian. By a most propitious coincidence I have yet to understand representatives of the Met Police showed up at The Guardian's offices at about the same time arguing the video should not be published. The Guardian published anyway and the rest is history.
But what if the cops had said to Mr. Banker, the copyright owner, "If you proceed with this we will of course thoroughly investigate the crime you allege against this cop, evidenced by this video, but we will also thoroughly investigate you and your hard drive, as is our job"? Could this perhaps have had an intimidating effect on Mr. Banker? Now maybe he is a rare, pure soul who can be sure he has nothing to fear and has broken no laws. Maybe he has a team of lawyers who can advise him daily on the latest legislation and can constrain the contents of his hard drive accordingly. Maybe he has never contacted anyone or visited any websites he wouldn't want his wife to know about. Then again, maybe not. Or maybe he's a poor banker and can't afford the lawyers so can't quite be sure. Yes. I think this may have an intimidating effect sufficient to swing the balance in some cases. In those cases the public at large will never see the videos and the police will be able to cover up their crimes all the more effectively.
We should recognize the legitimate authority of the police, but we should never trust them unquestioningly, and when we give them sweeping powers like this we give them too much power, precisely because we can't trust them. |
|
Jim |
corevalue wrote:
And just how did this come to the police's attention? The only reason they might have had an interest in him was because of his view that the age of consent and the incest laws needed changing, but that's a political viewpoint. So I take it that they had him under intensive surveillance and were intercepting all his net use, on the basis of a political view.
Sinister.
Actually, corevalue, plausible though your explanation is, it is worse than that. What if Andrew Smith had the dirt on a police officer, or one of his buddies in the security state, and went to the police with a complaint? Perhaps the police then threatened him with a thorough investigation of his hard drive if he persisted in making their lives difficult. How can we prevent the police from having and relying on the power to threaten people in this way? The more sweeping the definitions of crimes, and the more invasive the surveillance state, the more vulnerable we are to this kind of abuse.
Under current practices, if Edward Snowden is to believed, it seems likely that they were able to get everything they needed on Andrew Smith from a simple database search bringing up every URL he ever requested.
Am I exaggerating? The point is, though your explanation seems more likely, mine is possible, and as long as it is possible, this is the power the police increasingly have. |
|
corevalue |
And just how did this come to the police's attention? The only reason they might have had an interest in him was because of his view that the age of consent and the incest laws needed changing, but that's a political viewpoint. So I take it that they had him under intensive surveillance and were intercepting all his net use, on the basis of a political view.
Sinister. |
|
Anon |
I hope poor Bart and Lisa are ok... |
|
JK2006 |
But at least our fine police force and courts system is being used well in Portsmouth Giles...
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2718792...g-arms-cemetery.html |
|
|
|
|
