You have the power.

It is important to know what you can do and what you can't. OH for example has run a couple of articles on this very point. I neither condone nor condemn Holby's suggestions for behaviour. Your rights are not conditional upon anything, written down, they are a simple statement of fact. How you use your rights is up to you.

Don't assume that people in 'authority' will always play by the spirit of the rules, if not the actual rules themselves. Whilst 'they' may not actually be breaking any rules, some people will attempt to use your ignorance of the rules to get the better of you, or by hiding things in plain sight to trip you up.

As Ambush Predator pointed out the other day:

She said: ‘We couldn't believe it and were annoyed that other people in our group got in. I would like to know what we can and can't do.

So go and find out then. No-one is going to tell you, you'll have to do some research and some reading, no biggie, just takes a little thought. It is in nobody's interests but yours, so don't expect anyone to take an interest other than you.

However it does not follow that people in authority WILL attempt to hoodwink you or bully you, but one should be aware of the potential. Always think before you act or speak, and as a general rule of thumb, if you're not sure, do and say nothing.

The Libertarian Party blog has posted up a notice from an acting police inspector about the fitwatch website. Now, I've little time for the students and their protest. Firstly because they are asking for money to be taken from people under threat of imprisonment to give them a material advantage over others. That sounds like extortion to me. Secondly, as soon as you start throwing objects at police officers any sympathy I do have vanishes.

The police often get it wrong, usually in the Senior Management suite, occasionally on the ground. I believe that when they get it wrong in the nice big leather chairs it is because they are self-serving, promotion chasing opportunists who neither understand nor care what is happening on the ground. When individual officers get it wrong on the ground it is in the main, I suspect, because there is no chance for them to keep on top of the endless parade of new legislation which makes little or no sense. To keep on top of it all would probably involve a police officer being in the classroom for a fortnight every month. There will of course be a number of people in the uniform who are completely unsuited to the job through attitude or aptitude.

However the vast majority of police officers you encounter will be trying to do their best in very trying circumstances with nowhere near the resources and support they need.

On this occasion, the police inspector has got it very wrong.

APPLICATION FOR CLOSURE OF A UK BASED DOMAIN NAME

Fitwatch.org.uk - IP 69.175.66.250

To whom it may concern at Singlehop

Op Malone

In connection with our criminal investigation into registration or use of the domain name set out in this letter, we hereby confirm that:
* The domain is being used to undertake criminal activities.
Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, contrary to Common Law
We hereby request Singlehop to de-host this website for a minimum period of 12 months. Please note that this request will be also sent to the domain name registrar for the website. You should provide the following contact phone number, email address and reference number to the registrant: 0207 230 8100 pceu@met.pnn.police.uk

REASON FOR CLOSURE 

This website are committing offences of attempting to pervert the Course of Justice under Common Law. The website is providing explicit advice to offenders following a major demonstration in Central London. The demonstration was marred by violence and several subjects have already been arrested with a major police operation underway to identify and arrest further offenders.

The person controlling these websites has posted material held to be contrary to Common Law within the UK. Therefore to prevent the domain names from being used in crime we request that the domain name is suspended for a minimum period of 12 months (or until expiry of the domain name if earlier).

This common law offence is committed where a person or persons:-
(a) acts or embarks upon a course of conduct
(b) which has a tendency to, and
(c) is intended to pervert,
(d) the course of public justice.
Registrant Information for fitwatch.org.uk
Registrant : [DELETED]

All other personal details withheld

Registered on : 17-Nov-2008

Authority to close the website and IP address given by
Will Hodgeson, Acting Detective Inspector
Metropolitan Police
CO11 Public Order Branch

Many Thanks in Advance

Yours faithfully

DI Paul Hoare
Police Central e-crime Unit (Computer Crime Unit)
SCD6 Economic & Specialist Crime Command,
Metropolitan Police.
1st floor, Indigo Block, Cobalt Square
1 South Lambeth Road,
London
SW8 1SU
0207 230 8100
pceu@met.pnn.police.uk

As Guthrum points out, there is no word for any magistrate, judge or court. I'm sorry, but in this country you cannot restrict peoples' freedom of expression on the word of an acting inspector, it just doesn't work like that.


But go back and actually read what the statement says. Go on, I'll wait. . .


Did you see it?

We hereby request Singlehop to de-host this website 

Request. There is no order, no command, no obligation. A request. But if you got that letter, would you see it that way? Unlikely. It is hidden in plain sight. I said the police officer got it very wrong. Well, not wrong, he's perfectly within his rights to ask the host of this site to take it down, but without an order from the court, the host is well within their rights to decline.

Not just in situations dealing with the police, but with every authority figure you come into contact with, every contract you sign, every time you agree to something, take the opportunity to consider what is going on and what has actually been said or written.

Don't assume that people you deal with have your best interests in mind, because likely as not, they don't.

Don't think 'Oh, but they wouldn't do that.' Because they would.

Look out for yourself, because nobody else will. If you are ever uncomfortable with a situation, say so and state that you will pause the situation until such time as you find out your rights and the truth. Power companies calling at your door to get you to switch providers are a good example of this. Don't get your rights from them, don't get their 'truth', find it out for yourself. For 99% of things to happen to you, you have to consent. So withold your consent until you are absolutely sure about the consequences and recourse available to you.

If you are unsure (and it is perhaps good practice even if you are sure), politely and calmly, yet firmly, challenge the person in front of you. Who are you? Where does your authority come from? From which Act of Parliament? What sanctions are available to 'them' if you do not comply? Where is this set out?

Don't be abrasive or smug, point out that you ask because you want to know, to understand. Anyone who is on the level will explain and provide evidence and/or will not object to a delay whilst you establish the facts.

Once they try to tighten the screw, to apply pressure, to hurry proceedings along, to give a garbled or over-complicated explanation, or fail to offer any explanation at all, then it is time for your alarm bells to ring. In the instance of a private company, show them the door, in the instance of the police, say nothing and make sure you get a solicitor who can answer your questions to your satisfaction (remember, the duty brief is not free, you've paid for them via your taxes), and never ever sign anything until you've had the chance to read and digest the document, even if it is only a mobile phone contract, and if the beneficiary is hovering over you to get it done, walk away, they're up to no good.

The One That Knows In This Country, She'd Be Charged With Murder. . .

An Indian farmer's daugher disarmed a terrorist leader who broke into her home, attacked him with an axe and shot him dead with his own gun.

Fantastic. He'll not be doing that again.

Rukhsana Kausar, 21, was with her parents and brother in Jammu and Kashmir when three gunmen, believed to be Pakistani militants, forced their way in and demanded food and beds for the night.

Militants often demand food and lodging in nearby villages.

When they forced their way into Miss Kausar’s home, her father Noor Mohammad refused their demands and was attacked.

His daughter was hiding under a bed when she heard him crying as the gunmen thrashed him with sticks. According to police, she ran towards her father’s attacker and struck him with an axe. As he collapsed, she snatched his AK47 and shot him dead.

She also shot and wounded another militant as he made his escape.

In this country she'd up before the courts for breaking their Yoomanrites.

Miss Kausar said she had never fired an assault rifle before but had seen it in films and could not stand by while her father was being hurt. “I couldn’t bear my father’s humiliation. If I’d failed to kill him, they would have killed us,” she said.

One less of them . . .

The One That Will Examine Some Points. . .

I was directed by (I think) Obo the Clown towards Tom Harris' blog (he's a Labour MP for a Glasgow constituency) where he said some, frankly, amazing things on the subject of benefits. Attracting scorn from some of his party colleagues, but a good deal more praise from a wider range of readers. It was Tom who so nonchalantly batted away the message contained in his copy of 1984 that all MPs received as part of a Libertarian Party campaign. I've found it almost impossible to agree with anything he's said in the past, until the other day. Suggestions that he's been taking brave pills whilst his boss has been tucking his trousers into his socks, not getting his makeup done properly, not having a press conference with Obama and addressing a load of wonks bussed into the Capitol Building in DC are pure conjecture.

I for one will be delighted if he keeps it up.

Anyhow, in my rather jokey posting below, a correspondent named 'Andromeda' posted a link and a list of points for consideration my responses are underneath each point:

(a) deprive a single mother of child benefit if she cannot produce a marriage certificate
Marriage is irrelevant, just because you get hitched doesn't mean you're a fit mother or that you're not going to screw the system for what you can get. It isn't a magical cure, people who think it is are living in the 19th Century.

(b) fine the single mother for producing an illegitimate baby, say £1000, if she does not name the father
Irrelevant. I am proof that being brought up by a single parent (although in my case it was my father's death that caused this) does not mean it is going to be a disaster. This is about stopping paying out sums to those who do not deserve it. Why is there this obsession with taking money off people? The State arbitrarily taking cash from people because they do not comply with their moral code is no better than people demanding the State support their lifestyle choices. Stop it.

(c) require her parent(s) to pay this sum if she cannot or will not
See point b above.

(d) fine the father of an illegitimate child a sum of money, say £1000
See point a above. Legitimacy of birth doesn't matter. A bit of paper does not make anyone a model parent.

(e) require the parent(s) of that father to pay this sum if he cannot pay it himself
See point a and point b above.

(f) require that the mother give up the child for adoption before more lives are ruined
Perhaps one of the most odious, repugnant and authoritarian measures I have ever heard.

I'm surprised that point (g) doesn't read: 'require that a single woman undergo a termination in the first instance of becoming pregnant out of marriage, and undergo termination followed by sterilisation in the second instance.'

All these points do is stifle freedom and liberty. I have no problem with people having kids in wedlock, in a stable non-formal relationship, as single parents, in same sex partnerships, whatever. What I do object to is the expectation that I and all the other taxpayers will foot the bill because people have decided to have kids they cannot afford to look after.

I don't have any kids as yet, we have neither the income nor the space to do it, and it will be a cold day in hell before I become beholden to the State to help bring up my kids. My kids, my choice, my responsibility. I do have a dog. Substitute dog for child and the whole thing is shown to be the ridiculous situation it is.

Getting a puppy means that State will provide you with housing and an income. The State will pay for your puppy to be trained, vaccinated and have its healthcare assured. If you are having problems with your puppy, the State will send someone round to assess the situation, and they will tell you it isn't your fault that you can't look after your puppy, which it is your right to have, and will send you on dog walking and tripe making classes. All this will be paid for by the taxpayer.

The message needs to be sent out, if you can't feed them, don't breed them. Benefits have ceased to be a safety net. When I was a kid, receiving State assistance was a situation of great shame, you didn't want to be the kid being given the vouchers for free dinners. Now it is a valid lifestyle choice, and a lifestyle that is funded in such a way that when I look at the deductions on my payslip each month, I am unable to follow the lifestyle I would like.

What do you call a system where one way of life is supported and encouraged to the detriment of all others?

The One That Wants A Yacht . . .

Well, I don't really want a yacht, I was just using it as a bit of allegorical illustration.

The story went something like this; A friend of mine had been exposed to the suggestion by a young lad of about 13 or 14, whilst he was on the way in to the late opening newsagents getting his pint of milk, that he should buy a packet of ten cigarettes for the boy who would then reimburse him for his expense. Needless to say my friend was doubtful that if he bought these cigarettes for this young gentleman that his money would be returned to him, the lad replied that the alternative was getting a kick in the head.

My friend is something of a martial artist and pointed out to the boy that police involvement or no police involvement, any attempt by the rosy cheeked little scamp to visit harm upon him would be met with an introduction to a level of physical pain hitherto unknown to him, or words to that effect. The lad wisely decided that it was time to beat a retreat and pick on a more vulnerable target.

My friend is one of those who looks at me a little oddly when I go off on one of my rants, but like so many others he is starting to 'get it' even though it takes him a short while to shunt his brain from the sidings on to the track. My friend isn't thick, far from it, he's just become so used to accepting what he is told that it takes him a while to shift out of neutral and drive for himself.

He passed comment on the young lad outside that newsagents and wanted to know, as this was approaching 11pm, on a weeknight, and during the school term, what were the parents doing and were they not in the least bit concerned that their offspring was out on the streets, unsupervised at such a late hour?

My friend was missing the point. The point (most likely) is that having been born, the lad has done his job, he has served his purpose and his only duty now is to exist. The chances are that the lad wasn't born because he was the result of a stable and loving relationship, he was born because his mother had the (probably subconscious, I'm not suggesting that many people are that cynical) realisation that his existence would provide accommodation and an income. I explained to my friend that I resented paying for other peoples' children when my lifestyle choices are not funded by the taxpayer.

My friend gave a wince and said to me 'I see what you're saying, but it was his mother's right to have a kid.' I explained the situation thus:

I want a yacht. It is my right to have a yacht if I so wish. My friend agreed that it was my right to own a yacht.

I pointed out that I don't actually know how to sail a yacht, so I'd be forever bumping into other yachts and squaring up against ferries and container ships. Any attempt to put a pilot on board my yacht to steer it for me would be met with hysterical abuse and hostility. I'd be damaging the berths in the marina, but as it was my right to moor the yacht I am entitled to, the Harbour Master wouldn't be able to stop me from using the marina, even though I'd be getting right on the wick of all the other responsible yacht owners. Also I can't actually afford a yacht. I can't afford to pay for its upkeep, for its fuel or its mooring fees, so the taxpayer will have cover those costs.

My friend made the entirely reasonable point that if I don't know how to handle a yacht and can't afford it, I shouldn't have one.

I then said that if people can just have kids and expect the taxpayer to fund them, I want a taxpayer funded yacht, thank you very much. My friend said I was being silly and that the right to have children is more important than the right to have a yacht.

'Ahhh' I said, 'We live in a country where we must promote and value diversity. You cannot say that my desire to have a yacht is any less valid or valuable than someone's desire to have children. It is my right to have a yacht and your responsibility to fund it. So give me the money.'

The penny finally dropped. People seem to accept that having children paid for and brought up by the taxpayer is perfectly reasonable. And yet, when you substitute the word children for the word yacht, the whole situation becomes quite absurd.

This is why I have no children, at the moment. I don't have the money, I don't have the houseroom (and to any of you tempted to point it out, I do have a willing parnter, thank you). I don't have a yacht for those same reasons, plus having lived in a town with a number of marinas in my youth I am well aware that yachties, on the whole, are utterly charmless individuals who have awful taste in clothing. I have no desire for any child of mine or my family to be in the thrall of the state.

Unfortunately children in this country have been turned into a commodity, they have ceased to be human beings with dreams and aspirations, indeed dreams and aspirations are discouraged. Children and their woefully ill-equipped, state dependent parents are just items for collection and control by Leg-Iron's righteous and it is quite, quite tragic.