OMG! How dare women go to the beach with their clothes on?

August 28, 2016

As everyone knows, people go to the beach to leer at scantily-clad folk, or to be leered at while scantily-clad.  So how dare anyone go to the beach without flashing their bits at everyone?

burkini1

The burkini is obscene and shouldn’t be allowed anywhere!  At all!

burkini2

Wow, that burkini is really offensive!  It’s got a hood.  And it covers the woman’s legs.  How obscene…

Ok, so burkinis look stupid.  But lots of clothes look stupid, should they be banned?  Like those caps with cupholders so you can drink through a straw without having to carry the can in your hand.  Shall we ban them too?

cup-holder-caps

Spot the dickhead

(Actually, maybe we should ban the cup-holder cap.  And French people.  If we just banned France and fizzy pop, all the world’s problems would be solved, in one (two?) fell swoop.

Now, if you wear clothes on the beach, it’s absolutely appropriate for the police to come and make you strip.  In public.  At gunpoint.

burkini-ban-on-beach-cops

I know France is all tense and stuff after the terrorist crap going on there.  But when terrorists attacked the London Tube did the British government ban hijabs and turbans and white baggy trousers?  Answer: No.  Cos although the Brit government is really really stupid, reactionary and anti-human rights, it wasn’t that  really really stupid, reactionary and anti-human rights.  (I hope our present government hasn’t got that stupid yet…).

 

Oh yeah… don’t forget that the thought police know what you’re thinking:

olivia-thirlby-as-anderson-1

Psi-Judge Cassandra Anderson: the acceptable face of thought crime control…

 

 


French police attacked by “urban guerrillas”

November 28, 2007

 1011france3d.jpg

French police searching a suspected rioter

There are riots in Paris – last night, over 70 policemen were injured, in the second night of violence in the Parisian suburbs. And police spokesman Patrice Ribeiro claimed that the youths they were facing are “urban guerrillas”! They were armed with a variety of weapons including firearms, and shot at policemen and reporters.

The riots were prompted by the death of two teenagers in a motorcycle accident involving a police car on Sunday in Villiers-le-Bel, an area dominated by public housing blocks.  Angry residents said the police left the scene of Sunday’s crash without helping the two teenagers whose moped had collided with their car.

Police officials said the moped ignored traffic rules and crashed into the police car, and that the bike was unregistered and not road legal. Neither of the riders – aged 15 and 16 – was wearing a helmet, and the prosecutor’s office said the bike was going at top speed.  But this announcement has done nothing to calm feelings in the suburbs – it’s as if the police are saying that it’s okay to kill illegal drivers.

Omar Sehhouli, whose brother was one of the victims, told France Info radio: “This is a failure to assist a person in danger. It is one hundred percent a police blunder. They know it, and that’s why they did not stay at the scene.”  Sehhouli has also said that the rioting “is not violence but an expression of rage”.

The police have started an investigation into the crash.  They say that none of the officers involved had been drinking, and that it seems they were not responsible for the accident.  But the angry youths of Villiers-le-bel think that the police are just covering their backs. And they are incensed by the suggestion that the crash victims were responsible for their own deaths.

If the police want the rioting to stop, they will have to accept responsibility for what they’ve done.  And they need to lose the superior attitude with which they treat the inhabitants of the suburbs.


UK has harshest terror detention laws

November 16, 2007

Well, here’s something to make the British law and order crowd feel proud. The BBC reports that according to a survey carried out by the human rights group Liberty, the UK police have the power to hold uncharged terror suspects longer than any comparable country in the world.

British police can hold uncharged terrorism suspects for up to 28 days – and ministers are saying they want to increase that to up to 56 days.  The Liberty survey, carried out by lawyers and academics in 15 countries, found that the second-longest detention period was in Australia – at just 12 days!

Other European countries have detention rules far less draconian than Britain’s.  In France, terror suspects can be held for just 6 days before the equivalent of a charge is made.  And in Germany, suspects must be seen by a judge within 48 hours but can be held without trial during the period of investigation. This must be reviewed by a judge at least every 6 months.

Here’s a summary of terror detention laws in Europe and the USA:

France: Up to 72 hours without seeing a lawyer and four years in pre-trial detention
Germany: Must be seen by a judge within 48 hours but can be held without trial during investigation
Greece: Up to 12 months – 18 months in extraordinary cases
Italy: Up to 24 hours without seeing a lawyer
Norway: Up to 48 hours – a judge can increase this period
Spain: Up to 72 hours without a lawyer – can be increased to a maximum of 13 days
USA: The attorney general can detain foreign suspects but must start deportation proceedings within seven days. Suspects can be held for periods of six months

It is difficult to compare legal systems, but Liberty used the charge as an indicator of when the process moves from the police to the judiciary.  On that basis, the 28-day limit in the UK was by far the longest.

Liberty is calling for Britain to use alternative measures – for instance, by making intercept evidence, such as from phone taps, admissible in court.

It says that better investigatory powers for police would be more effective and fairer than an extention of the already lengthy detention times.

Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti told the BBC that she would also back measures allowing for a suspect to be charged with a lesser offence while investigations for other related offences continued.

“With safeguards, I think it’s perfectly proper to charge someone with a lower-level offence, like possessing explosive material or attending a terror training camp, while you continue to investigate a complex conspiracy to murder.”

What makes the UK’s approach to detention of terror suspects even worse is that the police have been keeping suspects in custody away from the courts for the full 28 days when they could have been charged earlier!  The Daily Mail reported this allegation made by Conservative Shadow Security Minister Dame Pauline Neville-Jones: Don Stewart-Whyte and Mohammed Usman Siddique, who were arrested last August for alleged involvement in a conspiracy to detonate explosives on planes flying from Heathrow to the USA, were charged on the 28th day of detention when the police had had the necessary evidence for some days.

When the police act in this way, the extended period of uncharged custody is tantamount to internment.  And this makes the government’s plans to extend the possible period to 56 days even more unacceptable.  It would also be interesting to discover how often “suspects” are held for the maximum period and then released with no charges following.  It’s possible that the police are using the extended custody as a way of keeping certain people off the streets, where they can’t make trouble for the establishment.  And I don’t mean “trouble” as in criminal activities – I mean as in asking inconvenient questions in public, or taking part in political campaigns that embarrass the government.

If the government go on with their plan, the UK will be well on its way to becoming a police state.  In fact, the UK already resembles a police state.  Please let’s not make the situation even worse!


%d bloggers like this: