UK enforces law which bans public from criticising the govt

What point would that be?

That Andrew Lansley was 'an outspoken critic' - so outspoken I could not find any questions mentioned in Hansard regarding this issue from him.

That he had qualms about this piece of law?

What law would that be?

What are his thoughts about it now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVlByoImz9Q"]NHS Payroll Instructed by Shane King/Jonathan Davis to not pay i - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE8QBUiVslc"]itccs member assulted and imprisoned by charing cross - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uVGk3CxFL4"]Discharged from A&E - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asxvy4SxK4s"]Itccs- David Compan released - YouTube


False: 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.

True:
They do not mention the The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC)
They mention section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983
It seems it was HCP's not the police...however...

Section 136 Mental Health Act 1983

The police have the power to remove you from a public place if they think you have a mental illness and are in immediate need of care and control, for example, they might be worried about you because of your behaviour. The police do not need medical evidence before taking you to a place of safety. The police officer needs to reasonably think that you are mentally ill and they need to move you in the interests of yourself and other people.

There are occasions when the police may act if they think that someone is in need of immediate care or control. They have the power to remove someone to a 'place of safety' for their own protection, or the protection of others.
Removing someone to a place of safety Part of the Mental Health Act 1983 (section 136) details removing a mentally ill person from a public place to a place of safety.

It details police powers and the rights of someone in this position.
http://www.rethink.org/living-with-...-you-to-a-place-of-safety-from-a-public-place
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/20/section/136


False: New


True: Old


False: Using the mental health act if you do not agree with the government.


False: At the time he was implicating the Queen in genocide.

True: It appears as if he was on leave from work, and had pay issues. Also under occupational health - for what, I do not know. Possibly mental health issues. He was also attempting to hand over a document that outlined that the A&E department within the hospital he worked, by the authority of the ITCCS, could not be closed down.


False: Arrested/imprisoned/sectioned


True: Spent 48 hours being assessed by social worker Elizabeth Scully of the “Mental health assessment team” at The Claybrook centre

False: 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

You are quite welcome to go through the videos and point out if I am mistaken.

 

Why It’s Now So Dangerous to Protest
by Alison Banville (BSNews Editor)

In early 2011 I wrote a piece for the New Statesman about Mark Kennedy, the undercover policeman who had infiltrated an environmental group even forming a relationship with a female member. I addressed the question some had asked – why would so much time and effort be spent on a bunch of ‘tree-huggers’?:

‘All long-term campaigners on a range of issues – from the environment to the arms trade to animal rights – know, and have known since they began protesting, that the police are not the neutral body they pretend to be, but act on behalf of powerful vested interests: the corporations whose profits they defend and the government that is in bed with those corporations.’

This is the crux of the matter: profits. Nothing can be allowed to threaten them, not least peaceful people who simply want a just world and who are providing ordinary folk with the dangerous example of a life not ruled by the Holy Commandments of ‘consume, comply, conform’. That is why the gentle ‘tree-hugger’ is considered an enemy of the state, and will be treated as such. The state will also employ any and all measures to ensure that peaceful and LEGAL protest becomes a move too costly for any ethically minded person to contemplate.

Below I present the case that the UK government, in collusion with the criminal justice system and the police, has already embarked upon a deeply corrupt, systematic campaign to ensure that eco-activists (and animal rights/arms trade activists etc) will be too fearful to claim even their most basic civil liberties for fear of the dire consequences others have already experienced:

The case of undercover cop Mark Kennedy’s infiltration of an environmental campaign group has led commentators, including myself, to highlight the worrying way in which the police appear to be defending corporate interests rather than the public’s.

As George Monbiot points out the role of ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, in running the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), which managed Kennedy, should be scrutinized, especially in light of the fact that the former operates as a private limited company so that it is not accountable in any meaningful, democratic way.

It is right that we should question the apparent use of our police as a private protection force for corporations, but there is one sinister development that has been missed in this debate, and that is the subversion of the law in order to specifically convict campaigners participating in activities which threaten corporate profits. What is this subversion? It is the use of the charge of ‘conspiracy’.

Monbiot unwittingly touched on this when he mentioned that twenty of the people Kennedy reported on to his superiors were ‘convicted on the desperate charge of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass.’ But George was mistaken in thinking that this was simply the result of the police and Crown scrabbling around for any old charge that would secure a guilty verdict – that would have been bad enough. No. This was, in fact, part of a very deliberate and traceable strategy that has been used in recent years to deal with ‘problem’ movements of which this was just the latest example. The ‘conspiracy’ tactic is a weapon, sharpened and wielded in order to weaken those groups most effective in challenging powerful corporations. And what’s more, it has been used successfully against perfectly peaceful campaigners:

Sean Kirtley was jailed for four and a half years in 2008 on a conspiracy charge. He was part of an anti-vivisection campaign against animal research company Sequani. Sean carried out no violent act; he used no intimidation; it was never suggested that he had conducted himself in anything other than a completely peaceful manner at all times and, as far as Sean was aware, he had kept scrupulously within the law. But because he had updated a website with perfectly legal information, and because he had attended wholly legal demonstrations he was convicted of ‘conspiracy to interfere with the contractual relations of an animal research facility’ under Section 145 of the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act (SOCPA). Is that clear? – it was possible in this country for someone who hadn’t actually behaved illegally to be imprisoned for years because his lawful behaviour amounted to a ‘conspiracy’. Ingenious!

There was no outcry about Sean’s sentence because a reporting ban was slapped on the trial – and even if publicity had been allowed well, he’s just one of those ‘extremists’ isn’t he? To hell with justice. During the trial ‘evidence’ was presented to show how Sean and his co-defendants (all of whom were acquitted) had planned (legal) protests – the very act of planning to demonstrate being portrayed as somehow illegal. In fact, a host of totally lawful behaviour was offered to the jury as evidence of conspiracy.

Thankfully, after a campaign to free him, Sean’s sentence was overturned on appeal but he had already lost a year and a half of his life. After release, he reflected on the conspiracy charge saying, ‘the final nail that was hammered into the prosecution’s ‘argument’ was when they could not name anybody that I was supposed to have conspired with, so my conviction was quashed there and then….I did often ponder in those small hours in my various cells in various prisons who I may have conspired with – Jesus? The Holy Ghost? Superman?’

We might also reflect for a moment on the mindset of those who were happy to see Sean rot in jail for four and a half long years.

Footage of people at various legal protests has also been used in other cases to accuse them of being ‘lead conspirators’. In this way, it becomes dangerous to engage in lawful protest for fear of being convicted – which is exactly the point. Because to stifle dissent is the overarching aim here while police and politicians pose as neutral supporters of the right to protest. This is why in the recently collapsed Ratcliffe Power Station case the authorities waited to arrest 114 people in a Nottingham school when they had Kennedy’s information (him being a major architect of the plan) much earlier. Far better to deter a large group from political action than just a few.

Danny Chivers, one of the defendants confirms this also pointing out it was ‘the biggest pre-emptive environmental protest arrest in British history, and the starting point for a truly bizarre sequence of events involving a ‘conspiracy to commit trespass’’.

Here he nails the importance of the conspiracy aspect adding that ‘while Aggravated Trespass is a minor crime normally dealt with by a magistrate, anything involving Conspiracy has to go in front of a jury at the Crown Court’. This is the appeal of the charge for those employing it – it not only requires that no discernable offence actually be committed, it ensures a longer sentence which, in turn, acts as a deterrent. For the corrupt state fearful of the power of direct action – what’s not to like?

Chivers gives mention too to the draconian bail conditions given to those arrested preventing them from engaging in any LEGAL activities related to their cause. Again, this reflects the tactics tried and tested first on the animal rights movement, and this is significant because the thorough demonization of this latter group has meant there has been a fatal lack of scrutiny of its treatment at the hands of the police and justice system which has allowed individuals such as Kirtley to suffer serious miscarriages of justice. Crucially, it has also emboldened the police in their efforts to apply these same corrupt methods to the environmental movement because, in the eyes of the authorities, the two pose exactly the same threat. To misquote Martin Niemoller’s famous verse:

‘first they came for the animal activists…..’

The gullibility of the public on this issue must be replaced with a vigilance determined to protect the rights of every fellow citizen. Justice is for everyone or it ceases to exist and only an alert and watchful people can protect it, as John Adams knew when he said that ‘liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.’

Because the truth is, a covert game is being played with protest groups in this country which requires that the general population (and media) readily believe the propaganda of establishment voices. This game has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the public and everything to do with protecting corporate profits. It must be exposed because those who are happy to see our legal system subverted and fundamental liberties sacrificed are the real danger to any free and civilised society. And that’s no conspiracy theory.

Source – BS News 18 Feb 2014

http://bsnews.info/state-corruption-biggest-threat-liberties/

 

You've got to have a feeling that it's the judgment verbalized from the English nurse in "American Werewolf in London" Hi guys.

 

Just goes to show a disarmed populace is a subserviant people. Sorry to hear about the Orwellian laws in the UK, but your ancestors allowed themselves to be disarmed, so now you will have to develop a real set of balls to overcome this despotism. If they tried some bullshit like that in the US, they would have their collective asses shot off so fast they wouldn't know which end was up. Molon Labe!

 

Nonsense 'yote, no one's gonna shoot at the cops unless they have a death-wish.

It's pure fantasy the idea that citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government with their pathetic firearms. That may have been a valid notion back when they drew up the constitution because at that time, all anyone had was goddamn flintlock blackpowder weapons! (which BTW aren't even considered weapons anymore in most states, you can walk right in a store and buy one without a background check)

Tanks, urban assault vehicles, drones...modern police and National guard have you so out-gunned it's not even funny.

 

Says it all, really.

Are you a little bored/have know where else to go with this thread now?

What law are you referring to?

Somewhat related:
More police forces trial 'street triage' mental health scheme

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23759565

 

As far as protecting ourselves from tyrannical forces with pathetic firearms against drones, aircraft, armor, and trained peasant armies all you have to do is look at the American wartime experience in Viet-Nam, or Afghanistan to see that all this technology and training has basically been a waste of taxpayers money but a boon to the military industrial complex. If you ever get a chance to speak with any returning combat veteran from these conflicts you might be shocked to learn what low tech weapons can do to all that advanced technology and training.

 

That isn't why we pulled out of Vietnam. Atrocitys were committed by US forces. Agent orange continues to impact the lives and livelihoods of millions.
It was a completely immoral war that had little to do with Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia and everyone knows it, or should know it by now.

 

So what, there may be a re-writable history on Vietnam. Have people learned what it is to strive to be better? Perhaps all wars lead to defeat on both sides for the calculated improvement of civilization. Now the U.S. is just obsessed with legal models for settling indifference. Justice is just derived for the guilty to hold on to empty intentions of profit.:bobby: