When I ventured to criticise them in a BBC interview for acting beyond their powers I received a letter from the Derbyshire police commissioner objecting to my remarks on the ground that in a crisis such things were necessary. The implication was that in a crisis the police were entitled to do whatever they thought fit, without being unduly concerned about their legal powers. That is my definition of a police state.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
A monument of collective hysteria and follyPerry de Havilland (Wiltshire) · Civil liberty, Law & Regulation · Slogans & Quotations · UK affairs October 29th, 2020 |
 30 comments to A monument of collective hysteria and folly |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Yup. And these grotesque forecasts of 80,000 dead from a second wave are straight up bullshit.
It is not a crisis. We need to stop calling it a crisis. It is a problem, being made worse than it needs to be by over-reaction. (Funny actually, since that’s how one tends to die of Covid and the like — the body over-reacting to the infection.)
What are they going to do when there actually is a crisis?
I find it astonishing that police farce chiefs can demand you snitch on your neighbour if they have a Christmas party (because it’s your ‘civic duty’) while they ignored so very many reports of Pakistani-origin rape gangs for so long…
“Astonishing”
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inigo Montoya 1987
JuliM is right. British police forces failed, as they still do, to tackle the systematic raping of primarily young white girls across the UK by what are in the main, gangs of Islamic men. It is difficult to provide exact figures, but the number most often quoted is more than 19,000 cases. One might also consider police reactions to the violence initiated by BLM thugs, where they ran away. Yet the police were quick to assemble in force and attack genuinely peaceful demonstrations against the covid restrictions, just as they are eager to talk of stopping vehicles crossing the English Welsh border in case the motorist was carrying so called contraband goods (in this case anything apart from food and medicines).
Quite how some of the police tasked with these odious duties feel is hard to say, but one thing is clear, government are behind it. Britain needs a new political force, the LibLabCon confederation are no longer fit for purpose, as for the Prime Minister, he might recall his namesake’s advice, when he said, ‘Beware of the man in whom the impulse to punish is powerful.’ I have begun to fear our government and their increasingly aggressive ways.
Earlier this year the Mayor of Baltimore held a press conference.
Rawlings-Blake said that she worked with police to make sure they protected the protestors’ right to free speech, “ It’s a very delicate balancing act because while we try to make sure that they (protestors) were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well,”
It’s hard to deny that UK police have been following that policy for several years starting in 2011 with their passivity in the face of the “protests” following the death of Mark Duggan.
“One might also consider police reactions to the violence initiated by BLM thugs, where they ran away. Yet the police were quick to assemble in force and attack genuinely peaceful demonstrations against the covid restrictions…”
At first I thought that this was simply, people that we agree with – soft touch, people that we disagree with – come down on them like a ton of bricks. Instead, could it be that ordinary people who are slow to anger are seen as more of a threat by the powers that be than the kinds of people who would protest about the colour of the sky if they couldn’t find anything else to be angry about?
We could change all these things with mere votes, and we choose not to.
The part of people which wants a Master is powerful.
“The part of people which wants a Master is powerful.”
Those of us who don’t want to be masters and just want be left alone to live our lives are part of the problem I suppose. At the last election there were no candidates that I could bring myself to vote for. People who care about liberty tend not to want to be in charge.
This.
Who fights hard to organize a campaign to establish a ruling government dedicated to leaving people alone and disempowering government?
Now, if they could make “none of the above” a ballot choice, and leave the office vacant until the next election if it won . . .
staghounds
October 29, 2020 at 11:33 am
« We could change all these things with mere votes, and we choose not to. »
Only if there is a viable alternative for which to vote. There isn’t. All political Parties essentially agree on the same things. Merely changing the bus driver doesn’t change the destination.
“JuliM is right. British police forces failed, as they still do, to tackle the systematic raping of primarily young white girls across the UK by what are in the main, gangs of Islamic men. It is difficult to provide exact figures, but the number most often quoted is more than 19,000 cases.”
There are a lot more victims than that!
Regarding those prosecuted for it, there is incomplete information.
And then there is the Catholic Church child abuse scandal, which some estimate had more than 100,000 victims in the US alone, God knows how many globally. The police ignored the whispers about that one since the early 1900s…
Yes we know that “Asian” men only represented a tiny percentage of those found guilty. The courts can’t find someone guilty unless the police actually arrest them.
That’s the whole point of this thread, perps from different minorities or with different political agendas are not being treated equally by our law enforcers.
It has occurred to me that the title of this post perfectly describes a wind turbine.
Far too many police (and the governments they work for) prefer to arrest the harmless. That way, the cops won’t get harmed. And even more so, the police won’t have to subdue the violent, with all the risks to the violent that includes. Harm a violent, and masses will rise up against you and demand you be defunded.
“That is my definition of a police state.”
Seems you don’t have personal experience with a police state.
In a police state the police don’t do whatever they want – they do what they are ordered to do by the ruler. And they do it everyday, not only in time of crisis.
It is in the US the police do whatever they want. For example: they step aside and let rioters, arsonists on looters roam freely.
I thought they were supposed to enforce the law and keep order.
A public figure to get behind? I give you Mr Ron Swanson, of Pawnee, Indiana, on ‘why government matters’.
For more Swansonomics, check out “Capitalism: God’s way of deciding who is smart, and who is poor”. I watched all 7 seasons during Lockdown v1.0. Ron’s sound on almost every issue imaginable.
No Jacob, the police in the U.S. don’t do whatever they want. They are ORDERED to stand down against rioters by their Democrap masters.
My perception is that in a police state the police keep order to ensure the smooth operation of their own interests, and the price they pay for that is when an order comes down, they jump to it.
The curious thing about western police forces is that they appear to be in it for the power rather than the money.
Roue
I have been told by an ex NY cop that the fear of losing a 90% pension starting at age 63 and an extremely comfortable retirement is foremost in pretty much all of their minds.
Assuming he’s right it’s not so much the desire for money now, more the wish to avoid losing it later.
Yes, it used to be possible to change things by voting for the opposite party.
But it seems now that there is no such thing.
John,
Yes, I understand the threat of losing a generous pension is a powerful motivator. And on the subject of US police it has occured to me that the ulterior motive behind “defund the police” is that good cops leave in disgust to be replaced by thugs willing to follow orders.
But to my point, what I was getting at is that the “perks” for cops in poor brown countries are mostly economic, fees for looking the other way, but for cops in rich white countries, UK in particular, the “perk” seems to be the opportunity for casual sadism towards their fellow citizens.
I would prefer the UK cops to involve themselves in socially useful operations like underground casinos, whorehouses and retail narcotic distribution as they do here in Thailand, rather than make bloody idiots of themselves chasing people out of parks and running away from anarchists. If the police have businesses to protect, they have àn interest keeping the peace. Cynical I know, but that’s how it works.
the ulterior motive behind “defund the police”
The ulterior motive behind “defund the police” is Marxism. It is a fundamental idea in Marxist theory that the police are a tool of oppression, serving the ruling Capitalist class and protecting their properties, thus enabling them to exploit and suppress the proletariat or the underprivileged.
For a Marxist revolution to succeed it is essential to demolish the current, capitalist police (maybe by defunding).
Of course, once the capitalist police is broken, the Marxist revolutionaries form a new, proletarian police, which is much stronger and more brutal and lawless than the capitalist one… much more intrusive…
By the way – cops don’t seek trouble or to brutalize anyone. They wish only to sail quietly to their comfortable retirement. If ordered to step aside and not interfere in the rioting they are happy to comply.
Roué le Jour
October 30, 2020 at 12:15 am
“The curious thing about western police forces is that they appear to be in it for the power rather than the money.”
Dissent. I know a bunch of cops, and they all have the same thought fairly constant in their day: typical cop has a pension based on years of service + age (in some combination) and if he leaves with 19/20ths of that magic number, he doesn’t get anywhere near 19/20ths of that pension.
Jacob,
I’m only putting forward a point of view, not insisting that it correct. To address your point I would say that for antifa the motivation is indeed Marxism, but for the local government? How does it benefit them to weaken their tool of oppression? Unless they can strengthen it by getting rid of those cops with a conscience and replace them with thugs that have none?
As to cops standing aside during rioting, it could be seen as an example of the principal-agent problem. The police have control, but nothing to lose by permitting lawlessness.
I was introduced to Parks & Recreation by my 20yo daughter and Ron Swanson is my favourite character.
“The only thing I hate more than liars is skimmed milk. Which is water that’s lying about being milk”
Local Government (mostly Democrat) choose appeasement, which is easier than confrontation. They also followed Democratic group-think – they thought appeasement will help them more than confrontation in the coming elections. (Maybe they are right in this).
And then – many of the mayors are probably Marxists themselves (without knowing or admitting it explicitly like BLM or Antifa or Bernie) and not terribly committed to protecting private property.
Another basic proposition of Marxism (and certainly Anarchism) is that PROPERT is THEFT.
“Property is theft” is a spectacularly stupid mantra. Without property rights you have nothing, quite literally. If I am not allowed to keep the fruits of my labour then why would I want to go to work? No one goes to work, nothing gets produced, everyone is reduced to abject poverty. Imagine no possessions, yes John, it’s easy if you abolish all property rights.
“No one goes to work, nothing gets produced, everyone is reduced to abject poverty.
A good description of what happened in Communist countries from the USSR to Venezuela.
“Property is Theft” is a slogan coined by anarchist Proudhon in 1840.
“Karl Marx, although initially favourable to Proudhon’s work, later criticized, among other things, the expression “property is theft” as self-refuting and unnecessarily confusing, writing that “‘theft’ as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property”
You see – under Marxism there is no private property – so there is nothing to steal….Seems is never occurred to Marx that you can steal common property or state property – which is standard practice in our imperfect world.