Labour / police state

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • Has anyone else noticed that Labour are turning gradually turning Britain into a police state?
    I was reading up on it before in the paper, the Tories have accused them of just that, especially after the law now says that employers have to spy on their employees to check that they're not illegally smoking indoors and if they find any of them doing that, they have to report them and they will then be fined £50.00 or go to court.
    :mad:

  • Its not so much a police state (yet) but it IS a heavily 'policed' state.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • I know that over time things seem to be progressing, it was on the front of my paper today (like I've already mentioned).
    It's like, at one time, you used to be able to get someone to buy you a few drinks when you were underage.
    It must be so hard now when you compare it to how easy it was a couple of years ago.
    Obviously because laws are getting stricter year by year.

  • Quote from starry_eyed


    It's like, at one time, you used to be able to get someone to buy you a few drinks when you were underage.
    It must be so hard now when you compare it to how easy it was a couple of years ago.
    Obviously because laws are getting stricter year by year.


    What has underage drinking got to do with living in a police state?;)

  • I don't know how to explain it.
    Just the way that these days everything is getting far more controlled than it used to be.
    Twas a small example.
    Obviously there are far more pressing issues, it was just the one that popped into my head first as I was typing.
    I think it's because my mum was talking about it yesterday, about how the ages are supposed to be going up again for various things and how as an adult your being controlled by age even still.
    They're pondering over putting the age up to 21 over here, which doesn't bother me really, as I'm not far off 21. But at 18 your classed as an adult, you can have a credit card, be married, start a family, drive, have a career; yet you can't have a drink.
    Tis going off the point a little, was just pointing out how the word 'democracy' is dwindling away continuously! :plod::

  • Quote from starry_eyed


    It's like, at one time, you used to be able to get someone to buy you a few drinks when you were underage.
    It must be so hard now when you compare it to how easy it was a couple of years ago.



    I haven't noticed that? I've never had a problem getting hold of alcohol, rarely been IDed even though I don't look that old.

    Although the only thing I have noticed is in supermarkets - a couple of years ago they'd just ID the person buying it, now they ID everyone with them!!

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • I remember a time when you could just give your date of birth or change your clothes and some dumb bar tender would serve you (I'm not calling bar tenders dumb, just dumb for serving you, lol).
    Now it's really strict!

  • not that the problem really concerns me with having i.d anyway and being old enough, but it must be annoying for people who are underage these days.
    I think that a bit of drinking in your teens is part of growing up, my parents did it and so did theirs.

  • I reckon advancing technology is causing it to be easier for the Police to be more invasive in everyones lives. Although the Tories may be shouting, I can't forget what Thatcher let many of the Police get away with in her years.


    As for drinking underage I guess that's gonna vary a lot from one place to another. I'd be suprised if they bring the age to 21.

  • tis certainly more controlled now:whip: with more laws than ever:plod:: and there is a shit load of cameras in most towns keeping an eye on things:handbags: but id rather be shot by a camera than a gun the usa think we are crazy having cctv everywhere:calmdown:

  • Catch is, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.


    If they dont increase security measures then the present level of crime keeps happening and the proles throw their toys out of the pram.


    If they do increase secrurity measures then for a while people yell "police state", until they get used to it.


    Of course, no measure is 100% secure so it rapidly gets back to the understanding that present levels are no panacea so the question arises again as to whether to increase powers or to "face the slings and arrows" of both crime and the proles complaining......


    And no govt will ever call a halt to the gradual increase in police powers as the raison detre OF govt is to make a more peaceful and secure world :insane: so its pretty much a slippery slope ever since the first bods created some form of "management".....

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from alices wonderland

    1984/5 ... I was a miner on strike... It was just as much a POLICE STATE then. lets see... you would be minus 2 years old then. nothings changed that much.. starry eyed.



    Too true - I wasn't a miner, but was deeply sympathetic.

    Look back too at the police actions around the ending od Stonehenge fest at the same time, and the police violence during the poll tax riots.

    reconsider what you have learned about life - choose to listen to nature's broadcast - the voice of earth....

  • Quote from Coyote


    If they do increase secrurity measures then for a while people yell "police state", until they get used to it.



    that's really weird actually cos when they first tried to introduce uniformed police into London in the 18th century, people (well, the upper classes) went crazy saying it was an "infringement on an Englishman's rights" and the idea was too "French" (:D)

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • Quote from elfqueenofrohan

    that's really weird actually cos when they first tried to introduce uniformed police into London in the 18th century, people (well, the upper classes) went crazy saying it was an "infringement on an Englishman's rights" and the idea was too "French" (:D)


    That would not surprise me in the slightest!


    How many folks today want rid of the uniformed plod? Very few. The same will be true of CCTV soon and ID cards eventually...and so on. The new methods are always shocking at the time of introduction but so long as they are not so extreme as compared to the current situation they get assimilated into the "norm" of society.


    Eventually, given a serious enough level of threat, expect "Judge Dread" :eek:


    Right now its more "nanny state" than "police state" but these are part of a continuum. We get told "dont litter" or "dont smoke" but, just as these would once have been scoffed at, so eventually "Papers!" will be a norm.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Quote from penfold

    Eventually, given a serious enough level of threat, expect "Judge Dread" :eek:

    is that judge dredds jamaican brethren you on about


    :harhar:

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • I think the nanny state and the police state are quite different.

    Orgreave, the Battle of the Beanfield, Criminal Justice Act, Anti-Terrorism legislation etc etc that's police state stuff.

    Employers spying on their staff to ensure they're not smoking? Isn't this the sort of thing we're going to habve to get used to if we're going to save the planet? How else could we be sure you neighbour isn't mixing up his recycling, putting petrol in his car or sneaking off for a quick short haul flight?

    It's an interesting problem for a libertarian. Has anyone read jared Diamond's Collapse? A lot of things he champions are real nanny state stuff.

  • I know what you mean, I was stating what I had read in the paper.
    It is just a minor issue.
    I think the whole watching people all the time is good in a lot of aspects, obviously with crime and other issues.
    However I do love to escape it by going for a walk in the forest and glens where I live, it makes me feel free again.
    It's just a shame that there are so many assholes out there that have spoiled it for the rest of us.
    But they have always existed and the way a lot of kids are going these days, it's only going to get worse.
    My son will be brought up to respect others, look after the planet, have manners and so on, I just worry about what he might get involved in when he hits his teens.
    I'll try my best to give him no reason to rebel, but he'll probably go looking for something when his hormones go awol!



  • while I do agree with you, I did see it the other way round as well.

    Maybe we are heading into a 'police state', but surely that's nothing new?
    I mean, the police used to be armed.
    People could be sent to prison for just disagreeing with whoever was in charge.
    We had the death penalty.

    It's not like we're going from 'free state' -> 'police state'.

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • yeah i know, I do just think it might be the case in a lot of cases (not all) that some assholes are spoiling it for the rest of us, like I mentioned before.


  • Indeed. Its part and parcel of civilisation that people are policed, and in many ways the policing is more subtle these days (so you get ASBOs rather than the Stocks and Tazered rather than the pointy end of a sword)....but the power to enforce that policing is increasing (especially with the emergence of IT).


    Wiki :worthy: defines a police state as: "... a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population".


    We dont live in the classically totalitarian state (such as Soviet Russia or North Korea) because those labels dont really fit a market economy (as the labells are made to fit the Communist ones) but we do live in a society that is heavily policed (Policed: "To regulate, control, or keep in order") but not by an explicit central state. In some ways this is 'useful' stealth for any oppressors because people are sat around waiting for "1984" before saying "oppression!!".:eek::rolleyes:


    The question is; when does the normal policing aspect of civilised society become "rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population".

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Actually, on second thoughts, given this, the increased ability to enforce and control may indeed be about to bring us into "a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population" :eek:


    ...and personally I get a slight queasy feeling knowing "the forces of law and order" are getting increadably powerful! Its an increasingly effective tool in the cause of the totalitarian exposition of morality being defined by the law....

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."