UK enforces law which bans public from criticising the govt

In fact, suspects don’t even have to be told there is a trial taking place against them, until they are arrested by police to begin their prison sentence. The legislation effectively marked the start of tyranny and ‘disappearing’ in the UK, which is usually seen in countries like North Korea or Zimbabwe.


A British citizen was held for days without charge in a London mental hospital under little-known laws which allow the police to arrest and detain anybody who voices criticism against politicians or celebrities.

The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) was quietly set up to identify individuals who they claim pose a direct threat to VIPs including the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Royal Family.

It was given sweeping powers to check more than 10,000 suspects’ files to identify mentally unstable potential “killers and stalkers” with a fixation against public figures.

The team’s psychiatrists and psychologists then have the power to order treatment – including forcibly detaining suspects in secure psychiatric units.

Using these powers, the unit can legally detain people for an indefinite period without trial, criminal charges or even evidence of a crime being committed and with very limited rights of appeal.

Full story - http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=483115&f=606

 

That is crazy! That is what things are coming to..thought crimes

 

Don't think this is just the UK, they are first in a lot of things before America...Coming to a city near you!

 

I'm going to need a lot more than a link to a blog by someone whose only credentials seem to be that they once worked for the NHS before I actually believe you.

 

Hey Mr 'stien is not in the habit of making frivolous posts, he's got a more credulous trumpet than just about anyone here. If you have any doubt's, I suggest you check his post history.

 

It seems the rationale behind this is the finding that the main danger of death or serious injury to people in the public eye is from mentally ill loners.

Well actually a number of pro-gunners have put this kind of idea forward as a means of protection against those mentally ill loners that go no killing sprees or make assassination attempts

I mean if someone is mentally ill isn’t it better to get them treatment rather than having them killing themselves after an attack or doing ‘suicide’ by police marksman?

 

Ok....

International Common Law Court of Justice - who broke the story originally -

http://iclcj.com/?p=123


Fixated Threat Assessment Centre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixated_Threat_Assessment_Centre


Daily Mail - Revealed: Blair's secret stalker squad

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-457934/Revealed-Blairs-secret-stalker-squad.html


.

 

Thanks... though I hope my trumpet is credible, rather than credulous... though I suspect many will think the latter is correct

 

Thanks, but England is the only country in the world where socialism not working is the best argument against God's existence, that is the same God who ambitions the technique in all our children... to EXCEL.

 

Yeah... problem is that the law is so loosely interpretable that people can be detained even if the evidence is slender ...or indeed non existant.

So you can, if unlucky, be vanished away into a mental hospital under a law that very few people know of. You don't have to have actually done anything.

I think the crucial point there is: "who they claim". None of that "presumed innocent until proven guilty" nonsense, it's straight off to the mental hospital.

And of course you wouldn't be in a mental hospital unless you were, well, mental - so who's going to believe you ?

So it doesn't really matter if you're sane or insane, innocent or guilty - they don't need any evidence to lock you away. In theory, for ever...

Happening right now in the UK, folks...


.

 

Yes ?

 

thats just very typical.its called british justice. guilty until proovin' innocent.

 

I wanted the second part of the discussion concerning excelling children not to work and just call that common humanism.

 

Sorry mate, I think you're in the wrong thread...

 

Judging from his past posts we can guarantee it has nothing to do with those: 'who voice criticism against politicians or celebrities.' and there is no law: 'which bans public from criticising the govt'

And that: 'It was given sweeping powers to check more than 10,000 suspects’ files to identify mentally unstable potential “killers and stalkers” with a fixation against public figures.' is highly disingenuous.

Given this is atleast 6 years old, I wonder why it is being brought to our attention now.

In other circumstances the OP would not dream of using a Daily Mail article. But this one serves his purpose. To misinform.

 

The wrong reality, me thinks.

 

Because it is current now. Events that have happened this year.

The poster requested more information, so I gave him a selection of links from various areas of the media - the International Common Law Court of Justice, wikipedia and the Daily Mail - crudely, from the left, centre and right respectively.

Are you saying I should have posted a less balanced selection ?


Remind me, OdonII... which branch of the esthablishment is it that you work for ? Hopefully not the one that could get me arrested without charges and put away in a mental hospital...

.

 

Mr. Frankenstein

The link says:

'New draconian “fixed threat assessment” (FTA) laws in England'

It's not new.

'The legislation effectively marked the start of tyranny and ‘disappearing’ in the UK, which is usually seen in countries like North Korea or Zimbabwe.'

The way you seemed to be framing it was if FTAC was new.
Apologies if that was not your intention.
I guess you thought I meant this particular persons case.

The ITCCS is 'the left'?
It seems a moderately well intentioned Kangaroo court to me : /
That link and the OLD Daily Mail link seemed to be coming at it from the same angle.
I wouldn't say that was 'balanced'.
It told us precious little about the case in question.

I think 'the truth' is what matters. What is the truth?

The DM does provide this:

'"Psychiatric investigations are undertaken by psychiatric professionals only. Police officers do not assess people with mental health issues. The police provide the intelligence to ensure that psychiatrists have all the information available to make an assessment.'

Is that part of the truth?

None of what you posted backed up the majority of what you had said.

Personally, I was looking for information regarding


...his arrest.
So, they arrested him with out charging him with anything?
One of your links quotes:

"FTAC does not detain people in psychiatric hospitals. When it encounters an individual in need of mental health care it alerts their general practitioners and psychiatrists, who then provide appropriate help under existing legislation. FTAC may make use of police powers under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to take a person who appears to be suffering from mental disorder, and in immediate need of care or control, to a place of safety. When people are removed to hospital under section 136, they are examined by a registered medical practitioner and interviewed by an approved social worker, not associated with FTAC, in order to make any necessary arrangements for their treatment or care."

To me it sounds as if this chap was what I think they used to call 'being sectioned'.

He has been released now, hasn't he? So, why hasn't he come forward to put his story out there

It does not seem to be about: ban(Bing) the public from criticising the govt.
That seems to be rather an over-statement to me.
If it were true wouldn't half of the population be in a mental health facility/arrested by now?

Also, information about: 'It works in a similar way to laws in Thailand which ban citizens from saying anything critical of the Thai royal family.'

Does it? really? What Thai laws would they be?
Lets make a comparison.

There were quite a few more claims being made, but I won't go into all of them.


From the horses mouth:
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2010/december/2010110003591.pdf

More 'balanced'

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2007/aug/26/features.magazine67

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11259190

 

It's because of these "crying wolf" portrayals of conspiracy theories that leads me to believe that if something were to one day be a legit concern, which is possible, nobody will listen because they didn't follow the moral of the childhood story about why one should not "cry wolf".

Each time a sensationalist posting like this is made here or anywhere else, you hurt your cause every time an argument is misrepresented, framed, or includes fallacies to support it's correlation and any causation.

Wise up folks, we know your hearts are in the right place in terms of concern but you ultimately need to choose:

Say something for the purpose of ranting an opinion to feel that you did a token effort to try and support what you believe is the truth.

Or

Say something for the purpose of spreading awareness, and PERSUADING and growing your cause and influence of your political argument in a way to hopefully exact change.

If your missing facts and don't have a complete argument, admit it and say so, and come back when you've found the missing piece of your argument that remains consistent, true, and current to the way you framed your initial argument.

The two are mutually exclusive one needs to choose.

 

This concerns someone - a real person - to which it happened this year. What bit of that is crying wolf ?

The laws in question are there, for real, they exist, even if most people dont realise it. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is British law. Theoretically it could happen to me tomorrow, or you if you're in the Uk.