Author Topic: Political hecklers (Read 521 times)

Swoop · « **on:** September 29, 2005, 12:45:44 AM »

Get this.

At the British Labour party conference in Brighton yesterday an 82 year old man who's been a party supporter and member for 57 years was thrown out and detained by police under 'the provention of terrorism act'.

What for?

For shouting the word 'nonsense'.

Some bright spark in the government has already realised that this is a pooch screw and decided to apologise......but good grief Penfold!

Since when is heckling a politician terrorism?
It's bleedin' tradition.

link

Toad · « **Reply #1 on:** September 29, 2005, 12:49:24 AM »

You just can't go shouting the "n" word in public.

Chairboy · « **Reply #2 on:** September 29, 2005, 12:54:59 AM »

We have the Patriot act being used to arrest homeless over here, so why not?

Yeager · « **Reply #3 on:** September 29, 2005, 01:03:43 AM »

The patriot act is a power grab by haliburton, everyone knows this.

Oh yeah.....almost forgot the obligatory...."Bush is an idiot"

Toad · « **Reply #4 on:** September 29, 2005, 01:23:42 AM »

Didn't we go all through that once before Chairboy?

Didn't it end up with you using the train station incident as your example?

IIRC, you had no answer when asked if you then thought the homeless should be allowed inside the airport security screen so they could lounge near the gates.

Refresh my memory.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #5 on:** September 29, 2005, 01:26:37 AM »

WTG the english nation's socialist laborers party!

The ruling party surely paid a lot of money to stage this political rally in order to best put out its message to the british people during a time of national crisis, why should this important effort be allowed to get interrupted by the degenerate dissenting ramblings of an old malcontent?

He should be glad he wasnt shot!

Replicant · « **Reply #6 on:** September 29, 2005, 02:45:32 AM »

Crumbs chief!

Chairboy · « **Reply #7 on:** September 29, 2005, 08:20:18 AM »

Howdy! We did talk about it, and the problem remains that the Patriot Act was used to arrest him to shortcut the process. There are plenty of non-trespassing statutes that could have been used instead, but the protections usually given to an arrestee were suspended by the use of anti-terrorism laws.

Before you huff and puff and blow my post down, keep in mind that even the feds said that it was a very inappropriate use of the law by a local official, the reason I bring it up is that it's another example of how abuses of these laws are possible (and even probable).

Toad · « **Reply #8 on:** September 29, 2005, 10:07:55 AM »

Given the Madrid and London experiences, do you think there should be any restriction or security screen in place at train stations similar to that in place at airports?

Chairboy · « **Reply #9 on:** September 29, 2005, 10:14:06 AM »

Given the Oklahoma City explosion, do you think there should be any restriction on driving cars in a city?

The problem wasn't security screening, the story was that the police arrested a homeless guy and charged him under terrorism statutes for pan-handling. Not for rushing past a security checkpoint, as there wasn't one.

Toad · « **Reply #10 on:** September 29, 2005, 10:20:19 AM »

Just looking for a simple yes/no.

I'll then answer yours.

Chairboy · « **Reply #11 on:** September 29, 2005, 10:25:34 AM »

Yes, security screening at a train station is fine.

1. There WAS no security screening at the station.
2. They used anti-terrorism statutes to arrest someone for panhandling.

I was trying to save you some embarassment, but you didn't really give me a choice. Your point is moot because the Patriot Act arrest had nothing to do with security checkpoints, it had everything to do with a local politician directing police to use the Patriot Act stick to stop an annoying panhandler.

The feds said it was inappropriate, so feel free to continue arguing the point but do so knowing the facts.

BTW, you do not have to answer my question, it was rhetorical.

Maverick · « **Reply #12 on:** September 29, 2005, 10:29:56 AM »

Chairboy,

Oklahoma City was not a car, it was a Ryder truck, the same rental company that was used in the first WTC bombing. Obviously Ryder supperts terrorism and should be shut down. We should also not allow panel trucks to enter a city and you should have to drive out of town to do all your shopping. This will be necessary since with no trucks in town there will be no delivery of any goods IN the town to supply stores and there fore no stores in town.

Clue here, an missaplication by one official does not indicate acollapse or condemnation of the entire system.

Chairboy · « **Reply #13 on:** September 29, 2005, 10:41:14 AM »

I'm not saying it indicated a collapse of the system, just that it was another example of how any power can and will be abused by SOMEONE, which is something that is often overlooked by those who create them. Some of these recent 'peace at all costs' laws have bypassed critical checks and balances in our system, so the opportunity for abuse is that much more present.

Do you think that using an anti-terrorism statute in the UK to arrest someone who yelled 'Nonsense!' is appropriate?

Do you think that using an anti-terrorism statute in the US to arrest someone who is a public nuisance is appropriate?

If the answer to either of the above is yes, then we have a deep seated basis for disagreement.

If, however, your answer to the two questions is no, then it turns out that there isn't any argument here.

Toad · « **Reply #14 on:** September 29, 2005, 11:28:09 AM »

The thread was "Asian Man Shot Dead on London Tube". I don't think I was the one embarassed there.

Of course, I'm still waiting for you to list all the liberties we have lost because of the Patriot Act.

Have there been misuses of the PA? Sure. In fact, I'll wager you can find misuse/abuse of just about any law on the books.

Bottom line is that the current PA has been passed by the House and Senate.

The House and Senate passed differing versions of renewing the bill in July. Aconference committee to reconcile the two bills is expected to be named shortly and Congress has until the end of the year to finish the bill, or 16 of its provisions will expire.

This is how it is supposed to work.