9/11 what really happened?

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

My eyesight is fine. Your glasses appear to be polarised, however.

lol

He who laughs last... Didn't get the joke?

[Spiderman]

Ok, this thread is becoming really childish now isnt it?

There were a couple of pages of interesting things but if you guys wanna play silly word games there is a word association thread you know

[northwind]

Originally Posted by jonboy

Going off at a small tangent but relevant nonetheless I suggest.

Good article that. THough not free of bias. I love this:

"Kenneth Clarke, a former Conservative chancellor of the exchequer and home secretary, despairs at the way they are being used. "What is assured as being harmless when it is introduced gets used more and more in a way which is sometimes alarming," "

Ken, of course, was a front bencher when the Criminal Justice Act '94 abolished the right to peaceful protest, in the name of preventing illegal raves.

Originally Posted by Spiderman

The problem with the written form of communication is that sarcasm doesnt really come accross unless you are very very good at writing in that manner.

Tell me about it Lesson has been learnt on that score.

jonboy, interesting article but just got to the bit where hes criticising complex fraud cases not being tried by a jury. Forgive me if Im wrong, but the press has been pushing for this for years to change because so many people got away with fraud purely because ordinary people on jurys simply can not follow the paperwork. Neither can they truly understand the complex accounting regulations which mean an action is fraudulent.

Trust me, I know how damn hard it is to prove a fraud. The last one I had part of it was deliberate misuse of exchange rates. To try to prove that to someone on a jury is very complicated. You have to not only show what the correct rate was but why it was a deliberate act to not use it. And what we see as evidence of that is usually lost on non-accounting people.

So far, one thing I particularly dont have a problem with changing.

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by northwind

Good article that. THough not free of bias. I love this:

"Kenneth Clarke, a former Conservative chancellor of the exchequer and home secretary, despairs at the way they are being used. "What is assured as being harmless when it is introduced gets used more and more in a way which is sometimes alarming," "

Ken, of course, was a front bencher when the Criminal Justice Act '94 abolished the right to peaceful protest, in the name of preventing illegal raves.

I was an illegal raver in those days and attended the Criminal justice demo that took place in london.
Were you there by any chance Northy? it turned out into a full scale riot by the end and we were all in Hyde park being chased by cops on horses.

And all because we wanted to dance

i remember the draconian policies the tories rolled and more they wanted to but didnt get away with. its funny how these politicos have a short term memory when they have the chance to knock the other side isnt it?

Yet to this day i dont know excatly what that criminal justice bill has been used for tbh. Was it to give more justice to the crims and less to the victims or something and the reason the justice system seems so backward in our society.

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by lynw

Tell me about it Lesson has been learnt on that score.

Its a skill i wish i had too. There are some on this site tho who can turn a phrase just so .... and sometimes i'm a little jealous of them.

I'm mentioning no names so they dont get big headed.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Spiderman

I was an illegal raver in those days and attended the Criminal justice demo that took place in london.
Were you there by any chance Northy? it turned out into a full scale riot by the end and we were all in Hyde park being chased by cops on horses.

I nearly went down, but couldn't pull the funds together. Long way for a 16 year old I marched that day in Glasgow. I was cynically impressed with the Met though- lets block off the exits to Hyde Park, leaving a crowd in a confined space with no food, water, or toilets. Then lets act surprised when they become unruly, and beat the crap out of them. It was masterfully done...

Then, the absolute masterstroke... When, after giving assurances in the House of Lords that the Act would never be used to disrupt peaceful protest, one week after it was passed I was arrested under the powers, for demonstrating against the passing of the Act Great days.

As to what it's been used for, loads of stuff. It was the prototype for the ASBO and for dispersal powers. The illegal gathering laws were used many times to disrupt or prevent demonstrations, until the anti-terror laws made them pretty much redundant... They were used several times during the G8 demos, for example, and at Newbury, many times against hunt sabs, and have also memorably been used to prevent an amateur cricket team from attending a match, under section 69. Section 70 was used to prevent solstice ceremonies at Glastonbury, Stonehenge and Callanais... A mate of mine was once arrested under the tresspassory assemblies criteria when trying to attend a (legally organised) bike rally- he was an ex-police rider, but insisted on being arrested when the others he was with were. Another mate had a garden barbeque stopped under the anti-rave sections, as it was a gathering of more than 10 people with music playing.

Originally Posted by northwind

As to what it's been used for, loads of stuff. It was the prototype for the ASBO and for dispersal powers.

The illegal gathering laws were used many times to disrupt or prevent demonstrations, until the anti-terror laws made them pretty much redundant... They were used several times during the G8 demos, for example, and at Newbury, many times against hunt sabs, and have also memorably been used to prevent an amateur cricket team from attending a match, under section 69. Section 70 was used to prevent solstice ceremonies at Glastonbury, Stonehenge and Callanais... A mate of mine was once arrested under the tresspassory assemblies criteria when trying to attend a (legally organised) bike rally- he was an ex-police rider, but insisted on being arrested when the others he was with were. Another mate had a garden barbeque stopped under the anti-rave sections, as it was a gathering of more than 10 people with music playing.

And watch as the residents of Chelsea put pressure on the police to use this act to prevent the Bridge gathering in the future....

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by northwind

As to what it's been used for, loads of stuff. It was the prototype for the ASBO and for dispersal powers. The illegal gathering laws were used many times to disrupt or prevent demonstrations, until the anti-terror laws made them pretty much redundant... They were used several times during the G8 demos, for example, and at Newbury, many times against hunt sabs, and have also memorably been used to prevent an amateur cricket team from attending a match, under section 69. Section 70 was used to prevent solstice ceremonies at Glastonbury, Stonehenge and Callanais... A mate of mine was once arrested under the tresspassory assemblies criteria when trying to attend a (legally organised) bike rally- he was an ex-police rider, but insisted on being arrested when the others he was with were. Another mate had a garden barbeque stopped under the anti-rave sections, as it was a gathering of more than 10 people with music playing.

Interesting stuff and to my mind mainly examples of just how it was abused by the authority in ways it was never meant to.

I remember a lot being said at the time about raves and the drug scene and a lot of the reason why they wanted these laws was to clean up the drug culture.
Es and most other party drugs are more available now than back then and a recent report in the Evening standard claimed upto 80% of notes in circulation had traces of cocaine on them.

Why cant govt pass draconian laws against burglury or bike theft instead? We law abiding citizens loose our rights and freedoms while they consider giving killers shorter sentances if they admit their crime - even if they were caught red handed?