Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Publius Valerius]

Introducing some levity here, I have a new and improved map of the UK and ROI here:

Wait what... no geordies?

















Edit: I see now... Shirtless men  Is almost as good as the old wifebeater. 

[Wanoah]

I am worried because without Scotland, the UK is basically destined to slide into a very Conservative dominated system, primarily centered around the South of England. Without Scotland, there is less effective counterbalance to the Tory heartlands.

I have to say that it is my main concern if we get an independent Scotland. Still, we get Tories no matter what anyways: New Labour are basically Tories masquerading as the Labour Party.

[Louella Dougans]

don't forget, it was the Scottish Nationalists that voted with Mrs. Thatcher in 1979 in the vote of No Confidence that triggered the 1979 General Election that put Mrs. Thatcher into power.

So their cries of how badly Scotland suffered during the Thatcher years are somewhat silly, as it was they that caused it.

And as if it was only Scotland that suffered, and Tyneside, Yorkshire, Wales and many, many more places did not.

And now, they say "If we abandon our friends, relatives and neighbours, we'll be better off".

"I'm all right, Jack", the attitude of some in "Middle England", the attitude that allegedly was the cause of Scotland's woes in the Thatcher era, it's "wrong" for English citizens to vote that way, but "patriotic" for Scottish citizens to vote that way ?

As for political opportunism, the Nationalists criticised Blair for "focus group politics", and yet, they decide policy based not on what is right, but what is popular.

Establish links with Irish terror groups, because of "common Celtic heritage", no, let's not do that, it would be unpopular.
Establish links with Islamic terror groups, because "Scots-Asians are a key demographic", yes, lets do that, it will win votes in key constituencies.
Use established devolved powers to counteract the "bedroom tax", relieving the many families who are in dire circumstances? No, let's not do that, because "we don't want to let Westminster off the hook", and those impoverished citizens may then vote the "correct" way.

Three cheeks of the same arse, as a politician described the parties.

[Wanoah]

because of "common Celtic heritage"

I always find that an interesting one, as it's my understanding that the vast majority of the population of the British Isles are descended from those few thousand people that crossed the land bridge when the ice started retreating in the Mesolithic. All those later incursions by Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Romans and Normans only account for a minority of the population genetically. So yeah, very much a common ancestry for everyone on these islands. Of course, 'heritage' is a very flexible term and people like to cherry pick the commonalities they desire.

[Louella Dougans]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

In the UK, the police force has traditionally not been routinely armed with firearms, unlike many other police forces in the world.

In Scotland, there were several police forces, but these have now been amalgamated, and now instead of Strathclyde Police, Highland Constabulary, Grampian Police, and so on and so forth, there is now Police Scotland.

In the previous system, when there was a problem that was severe enough in say Lothian and Borders Police, then a different force, such as Strathclyde, would have its officers investigate the problem. As such, those investigating officers careers were not dependent on keeping a good relationship with the Lothian and Borders chief constable.

All change now. With a single police force, then everything is always going to be an internal investigation, conducted by officers whose careers are dependent on keeping in with the chief constable and other senior officers.

With a single police force, there are no others to compare and contrast policing methods, no challenge to correct failings, or make improvements. Compare with England&Wales, where anti-terrorism policing is done under the Metropolitan Police, and can be subject to review by any of the other police forces in England&Wales. In Scotland, there is just Police Scotland, and again, internal review only.

And now back to firearms. Previously, police firearms were kept in a locked safe, which could only be opened, with the authorisation of a senior officer, in response to a specific incident. Armed response vehicles also had their firearms in a locked safe, again, it could only be opened when authorised, when responding to a specific incident. Firearms officers could also only use their weapons with the authorisation of senior officers.

Now, particularly in what was the Highland Police region, the firearms officers, are routinely carrying their handguns and tasers, in response to all incidents. Highland region had the lowest violent crime rate in the entirety of the UK.

The chief constable and the Justice Minister at the Scottish Parliament, feel that this is OK, that these officers are police officers first and foremost, and that having to authorise firearms officers was 'too slow' because the firearms officers would have had to go to their police station, or stop their vehicle, to arm themselves.

So, in say Inverness, when it is pub and club closing time, firearms officers who are on duty at the time, may be called to support other officers engaged in street policing of rowdy drunk people. They did this before, but now, they are doing it while carrying weapons, and have the authority to fire those weapons of their own volition.

Now, in the rest of Scotland, if you have reason to request the assistance of a police officer, there is a chance that the ones that turn up, will turn up wearing body armour and carrying firearms.

And the Justice Secretary, and the SNP, do not believe that this is in any way, a change in policing or a change in the public's relationship with the police.

"Why should anyone calling on a policeman feel uneasy if body armoured officers with firearms turn up? Unless they have something to hide." seems to be the attitude now.

[Silas Vitalia]

Now, in the rest of Scotland, if you have reason to request the assistance of a police officer, there is a chance that the ones that turn up, will turn up wearing body armour and carrying firearms.

And the Justice Secretary, and the SNP, do not believe that this is in any way, a change in policing or a change in the public's relationship with the police.

"Why should anyone calling on a policeman feel uneasy if body armoured officers with firearms turn up? Unless they have something to hide." seems to be the attitude now.

As an American I find this firearm/police discussion completely fascinating. 

It makes me have to re-evaluate how I see the situation here to hear overseas perspectives.

[Louella Dougans]

Now, in the rest of Scotland, if you have reason to request the assistance of a police officer, there is a chance that the ones that turn up, will turn up wearing body armour and carrying firearms.

And the Justice Secretary, and the SNP, do not believe that this is in any way, a change in policing or a change in the public's relationship with the police.

"Why should anyone calling on a policeman feel uneasy if body armoured officers with firearms turn up? Unless they have something to hide." seems to be the attitude now.

As an American I find this firearm/police discussion completely fascinating. 

It makes me have to re-evaluate how I see the situation here to hear overseas perspectives.

Yeah, it's different, because of the difference in policing traditions.


Maybe an equivalent would be, that you phone the police, because you come home and noticed your door was ajar, like there was a break-in, and instead of a patrol car, it's the SWAT van, and SWAT officers in armoured helmets so you can't see their faces and so on.

Would that not make you feel like there had been some change in policing ? Wouldn't that make you somewhat uneasy ? That the police response to an otherwise routine incident has been substantially upgunned, for no readily apparent reason ?

[Lyn Farel]

Sounds scary. 

[Silas Vitalia]

Now, in the rest of Scotland, if you have reason to request the assistance of a police officer, there is a chance that the ones that turn up, will turn up wearing body armour and carrying firearms.

And the Justice Secretary, and the SNP, do not believe that this is in any way, a change in policing or a change in the public's relationship with the police.

"Why should anyone calling on a policeman feel uneasy if body armoured officers with firearms turn up? Unless they have something to hide." seems to be the attitude now.

As an American I find this firearm/police discussion completely fascinating. 

It makes me have to re-evaluate how I see the situation here to hear overseas perspectives.

Yeah, it's different, because of the difference in policing traditions.


Maybe an equivalent would be, that you phone the police, because you come home and noticed your door was ajar, like there was a break-in, and instead of a patrol car, it's the SWAT van, and SWAT officers in armoured helmets so you can't see their faces and so on.

Would that not make you feel like there had been some change in policing ? Wouldn't that make you somewhat uneasy ? That the police response to an otherwise routine incident has been substantially upgunned, for no readily apparent reason ?

Funny you should mention that, there has been an alarming trend over the last decade or so in the States, the 'militarization' of the police.  With our foreign wars winding down there's been a lot of money being made selling heavy armaments to local police forces.

We also have a great tradition in the USA of using SWAT teams to kick in doors and hogtie entire non-violent families at automatic weapons gunpoint for selling things like Marijuana.  Now even for some civil fines they will bring in the tactical armed teams.

Long story short if the police force doesn't find uses for the commandos, they stop having justification for buying all the weapons and having the commandos in the first place.

Here's an example, a small town in New Hampshire was about to spend $200,000 to purchase an armored personnel carrier, a town that had seen all of two murders in the last 15 years.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/police-tank-purchase-new-hampshire_n_1279983.html

" the war on terror has accelerated the trend toward militarization. Homeland Security hands out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns, many specifically to buy military-grade equipment from companies like Lenco. In December, the Center for Investigative Reporting reported that Homeland Security grants totalled $34 billion, and went to such unlikely terrorism targets as Fargo, N.D.; Fon du Lac, Wisc.; and Canyon County, Idaho. The report noted that because of the grants, defense contractors that long served the Pentagon exclusively have increasingly turned looked to police departments, hoping to tap a "homeland security market" expected to reach $19 billion by 2014."

[orange]

Now, in the rest of Scotland, if you have reason to request the assistance of a police officer, there is a chance that the ones that turn up, will turn up wearing body armour and carrying firearms.

And the Justice Secretary, and the SNP, do not believe that this is in any way, a change in policing or a change in the public's relationship with the police.

"Why should anyone calling on a policeman feel uneasy if body armoured officers with firearms turn up? Unless they have something to hide." seems to be the attitude now.

As an American I find this firearm/police discussion completely fascinating. 

It makes me have to re-evaluate how I see the situation here to hear overseas perspectives.

Yeah, it's different, because of the difference in policing traditions.


Maybe an equivalent would be, that you phone the police, because you come home and noticed your door was ajar, like there was a break-in, and instead of a patrol car, it's the SWAT van, and SWAT officers in armoured helmets so you can't see their faces and so on.

Would that not make you feel like there had been some change in policing ? Wouldn't that make you somewhat uneasy ? That the police response to an otherwise routine incident has been substantially upgunned, for no readily apparent reason ?

Fundamentally it is a question of whether or not the police are willing to treat you as an equal or not.  If they bring a gun to a knife fight, they will probably win.  It is a matter of power.

Also, what Silas said.

[Louella Dougans]

Yeah.

My feeling is that, in Scotland, it's like, this casual arming of police officers is like, the first tiny step on a road that only leads to an authoritarian police state, and it has been taken without any democratic discussion.

couple this sort of thing, with other stuff like, establishing a central government database on all children in Scotland, and the presumption of parental neglect, and a duty to inform authorities, then I feel that, far from Scotland needing to be rescued from the English, that it is instead, Scotland needs rescuing from the Scots.

Which is just terrible.

[Morwen Lagann]

While I'm personally not a fan of police militarization (as Silas put it), there are probably some communities in this country where a SWAT team being called in to respond to something as theoretically benign as the posed scenario of an open door indicating a possible break-in, actually would be the absolute minimum expected response - and not inappropriately so.

[Shiori]

Where do you live?

Fallujah?

[Silas Vitalia]

Where do you live?

Fallujah?

Chicago.  Despite what the media would tell you 90% of the city is perfectly safe, non-violent, regular people living their lives.

Certain specific areas, however, see something like 500 murders a year, something like 20 people shot every weekend.  Ironically this is the lowest rate in about 30 years.

The violence is a direct result of systemic city planning policies that concentrate poverty and lack of resources in virtually walled-off, isolated neighborhoods though. 

Unsurprisingly, if you segregate a huge number of people in extreme poverty for 50 years and deny them access to public resources, education, etc. and then throw a majority of the young males in and out of prison, you just might end up with an extremely violent and lawless part of town.

[orange]

Where do you live?

Fallujah?

My father, who went to Iraq 2-times, makes comparisons between there and the Alabama inner city school in which he currently teaches 8th grade math.