# So thought police DO now exist it seems.



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Is this proof that George Orwell wasn't too far off the mark with his "Thought Police"

https://caldronpool.com/uk-man-deta...mitted-but-i-need-to-check-your-thinking/amp/

I for one find it a VERY worrying scenario and, to my mind, shows that the lunatics are now a long way down the road to taking over the current asylum we live in.

Your thoughts?

Andy


----------



## bilbaoman (Jun 17, 2016)

You should be very worried i understand he is a former police officer


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

Yes it seems a nonsense as described by "The Cauldronpool" But you have to look through the rest of the site to see where they are coming from and how they are reporting "news" to suit their agenda. 

As for example:
K police urge public to 'report non-crimes' that cause hurt feelings; same department policing areas where 1,400 girls were raped by Muslim gangs.

I would like to see his tweets before making a judgement, as surely there would be a point where they cross a line of legality.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Webby1 said:


> Yes it seems a nonsense as described by "The Cauldronpool" But you have to look through the rest of the site to see where they are coming from and how they are reporting "news" to suit their agenda.
> 
> As for example:
> K police urge public to 'report non-crimes' that cause hurt feelings; same department policing areas where 1,400 girls were raped by Muslim gangs.
> ...


The whole point is that he was told, by the police, that NO CRIME was committed, therefore the tweets could not have been "illegal"

Yes I am an ex copper, and this sort of thing causes me great concern because this chap has been tarred as having committed a "hate incident" with no opportunity to defend himself.

Whatever happened to the principle of "INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty" in a court of law?

Andy


----------



## Devonboy (Nov 19, 2009)

Mrplodd said:


> Is this proof that George Orwell wasn't too far off the mark with his "Thought Police"
> 
> https://caldronpool.com/uk-man-deta...mitted-but-i-need-to-check-your-thinking/amp/
> 
> ...


Careful!


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Every crime investigation starts (allegedly) from the position that everyone is innocent. We all know that's a crock of **** of course.

Then The Police, thought or otherwise, set out to prove that there was a crime. They want to find a suspect and tell all the suspects they are simply trying to exclude them. That is what the police do. It's a nifty lie that innocent people swallow. The Police want to find evidence against anybody. Pretty much anyone will do. Evidence that might convict is good, anything that might exonerate can be ignored and preferably will get lost.

That is what The Police have historically done. There are a great many examples from which I will happily quote if Ploddy tells that I'm wrong. Which I expect he may.

The man in the example given wasn't simply thinking anything. He was publicly endorsing views expressed by others. That's more than thinking

As it happens I do think that Police action in this case, if it's real, would have been over the top but GREAT Britain interned plenty of foreign nationals during two world wars. Presumably that was done on the grounds that they were thinking foreign thoughts? Why else? Precautions? 

We don't have a world war just now, though it seems close on the right vs left front, but you sure as hell can't say or even be thought to have been saying anything for public consumption which might disadvantage differently orientated people.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

So if we 'dislike' some post or tweet, can that be deemed a hate thought (crime) by default? 

Ray.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

raynipper said:


> So if we 'dislike' some post or tweet, can that be deemed a hate thought (crime) by default?
> 
> Ray.


It always was risky since to agree with something considered subversive could very quickly get you on a watch list. Think of how people who did nothing more than express approval of communism or fascism were treated. Or the Defence of the Realm Act which said this:

"No person shall by word of mouth or in writing spread reports likely to cause disaffection or alarm among any of His Majesty's forces or among the civilian population"

Anti-war activists, including John MacLean, Willie Gallacher, John William Muir, and Bertrand Russell, were sent to prison. Alarm and disaffection? A nice bit of constructive ambiguity there. It could be applied to whatever they wanted to apply it to.

These are all attempts by The Establishment to prevent people saying things they didn't want others to hear.

Add Incitement of Hatred to the mix and you can see that there are lots of ways to control what people say.

Of course, as always, none of this apples to members of The Establishment. They can say what they like and pretty much do what they like as well. If you don't know about the treachery that was permitted among the ruling classes during WW2 you might like to read history of it. I'd recommend Hitler's British Traitors by Tim Tate. Most of us probably knew this sort of thing went on but I doubt we were aware of the extent of it and the almost complete refusal to tackle it.

It's just like today. The Establishment can do and say pretty much whatever they like and the rest of us better watch our step.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Also good to see real crime has fallen so much that an Essex copper has the time to stand over a motorist whilst he removes the word B0llocks from his car.

No subversion will be tolerated. :surprise:

Terry


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

dghr272 said:


> Also good to see real crime has fallen so much that an Essex copper has the time to stand over a motorist whilst he removes the word B0llocks from his car.
> 
> No subversion will be tolerated. :surprise:
> 
> Terry


I'd have flatly refused and the copper would have been left in no doubt as to why.

If he had been foolish enough to arrest me his superiors would have heard all about it too.

If it does constitute a public order offence they should have taken it up with Mrs Bercow and subsequently with the LibDems. But I doubt that wouldn have been winable. So instead they pick on members of the public who no doubt feel intimidated by the organs of the state.

I'd be challenging the authority under which that demand was made.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

erneboy said:


> I'd be challenging the authority under which that demand was made.


I suspect this one which is the choice of Police .
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5

It is like the 'Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Military Discipline' used in the Armed Forces which functions as a catch-all to criminalise offences against military order which are not specified elsewhere.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I'd like to think there'd be little chance of a charge even proceeding under that legislation, never mind succeeding. No doubt all will become clear.

I'll stick my neck out and guess that the The Police will decide to say that no offence was committed in the displaying of the word and that no further action will be taken. I'd be amazed if we were told that the officer had been re-educated or sanctioned in any way and doubly so if anything approaching an apology is issued.

I'll be very happy to be amazed of course.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

erneboy said:


> I'd like to think there'd be little chance of a charge even proceeding under that legislation, never mind succeeding. No doubt all will become clear.
> 
> I'll stick my neck out and guess that the The Police will decide to say that no offence was committed in the displaying of the word and that no further action will be taken. I'd be amazed if we were told that the officer had been re-educated or sanctioned in any way and doubly so if anything approaching an apology is issued.
> 
> I'll be very happy to be amazed of course.


It has been tested in court before.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/06/strong_language.html

Terry


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

erneboy said:


> I'd like to think there'd be little chance of a charge even proceeding under that legislation, never mind succeeding. No doubt all will become clear.
> 
> I'll stick my neck out and guess that the The Police will decide to say that no offence was committed in the displaying of the word and that no further action will be taken. I'd be amazed if we were told that the officer had been re-educated or sanctioned in any way and doubly so if anything approaching an apology is issued.
> 
> I'll be very happy to be amazed of course.


How about this to amaze you under a section 5 offence. It must be untrue that the Police are stretched to breaking point due to workload.
https://www.itv.com/news/2013-06-25/only-fools-van-pulled-over-due-to-offensive-doll/


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

rayc said:


> How about this to amaze you under a section 5 offence. It must be untrue that the Police are stretched to breaking point due to workload.
> https://www.itv.com/news/2013-06-25/only-fools-van-pulled-over-due-to-offensive-doll/


That does amaze me. But I do now see how it is hat the are stretched to breaking point. If the are going to tackle comedy they'll be needing reinforcements I think.

I've always considered The Police an interesting topic. It's long seemed to me that in preference to simply enforcing existing laws they are clear about there's bee a yearning to interpret laws to mean more than we understood them to mean. In effect to try to write the laws they'd like as opposed to the laws there are.

Ploddy may well tell me I'm wrong in which case I'll happily identify examples of this having happened. We could start with the ******** controversy and the we might reall enjoy ourselves remembering that shining example of a self made copper Sir Cyril James Anderton. Now there was a man promoted to top copper when he really ought to have been sectioned as a raving looney. Fear not Ploddy, I have more examples ready to bring to your attention.

Just as an aside I haven't noticed many heads of companies or of HNS trusts or charities who've been certifiable. Does the Police Force have a monopoly? Identify nutters young and bring them on? Cultivate them so to speak? Idle curiosity. Just trying to figure out how it is that nutters seem to be over promoted in The Police where other jobs seem to weed them out and eschew the idea of putting them in charge.

Careful avoidance of the word professions there. Shall we define what constitutes a profession too? I'd enjoy that. It used to be clear and it used to matter. Now it seems to include anyone who gets paid for their work.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

rayc said:


> How about this to amaze you under a section 5 offence. It must be untrue that the Police are stretched to breaking point due to workload.
> https://www.itv.com/news/2013-06-25/only-fools-van-pulled-over-due-to-offensive-doll/


That does amaze me. But I do now see how it is that they are stretched to breaking point. If they are going to tackle comedy they'll be needing reinforcements I think.

I've always considered The Police an interesting topic. It's long seemed to me that in preference to simply enforcing existing laws they are clear about there's been a yearning to interpret laws to mean more than we understood them to mean. In effect to try to write the laws they'd like as opposed to the laws there are.

Ploddy may well tell me I'm wrong in which case I'll happily identify examples of this having happened. We could start with the b0ll0cks controversy and the we might really enjoy ourselves remembering that shining example of a self made copper Sir Cyril James Anderton who'd have enforced what he saw a god's law if he could have. Now there was a man promoted to top copper when he really ought to have been sectioned as a raving looney. Fear not Ploddy, I have more examples ready to bring to your attention.

Just as an aside I haven't noticed many heads of companies or of HNS trusts or charities who've been certifiable. Does the Police Force have a monopoly? Identify nutters young and bring them on? Cultivate them so to speak? Idle curiosity. Just trying to figure out how it is that nutters seem to be over promoted in The Police where other jobs seem to weed them out and eschew the idea of putting them in charge.

Careful avoidance of the word professions there. Shall we define what constitutes a profession too? I'd enjoy that. It used to be clear and it used to matter. Now it seems to include anyone who gets paid for their work.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Mrplodd said:


> Is this proof that George Orwell wasn't too far off the mark with his "Thought Police"
> 
> https://caldronpool.com/uk-man-deta...mitted-but-i-need-to-check-your-thinking/amp/
> 
> ...


My thoughts are that political correctness has gone bonkers and that we have no leaders in this country who have the courage to talk common sense. And that's the problem - they mostly have nothing to gain and everything to lose if they don't go with the PC brigade.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

We hear a lot about this PC Brigade.

Who exactly are they, as in where can we find them, and what exactly is it that they do.

I doubt you can tell exactly who they are or where they can be found. I think there is no brigade but that it's a convenient label for views people don't like.


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

erneboy said:


> We hear a lot about this PC Brigade.
> 
> Who exactly are they, as in where can we find them, and what exactly is it that they do.
> 
> I doubt you can tell exactly who they are or where they can be found. I think there is no brigade but that it's a convenient label for views people don't like.


Couldn't agree more just a lazy,convenient label for those who might hold different views to you.

It tends to imply that no ordinary,sane person could possibly disagree with what I have just said and anybody who does must be part of one of these "brigades"

Or an enemy of the state (oh no we haven't gone that far.........yet)


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

No, can't agree there Alan.
It seems to me that the PC brigade seem to pop up with a loud voice as and when some oddball minority group just MIGHT be offended by something that has been common place in our society for generations and now can be deemed offensive.

Ray.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

OK Ray, is it always the same people who are in this brigade or are there just various people who express views you disagree with?

For it to be a brigade it would need to be the same people each time wouldn't it? Otherwise it's just more or less random people raising objections (often foolish admittedly) to this or that, isn't it?

I doubt there's a brigade. Brigade infers an organised force, which is of course why the phrase is so popular. It pretends to make this brigade an identifiable enemy. The same group, an identifiable enemy who's at fault every time people think something is PC and needs condemning.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Dunno really Alan as I guess not having paid too much attention and just noticing the ludicrous outcry's. Agreed if someone shouts an opposite view to me I would and can object and argue. At least we can still do this today but not sure how much longer.

If some oddball (my description) minority 'group' screams they have been offended by some off the cuff remark, maybe they need to get a life and not be so easily offended. You can't please all the people all the time and I personally have given up trying. If the truth as we (I) see it hurts, I'm sorry but get over it. Unless another reasonable or obvious opposite point of view is presented, I maintain my view.

We could go round and round all day about how much is offensive and to who and why. But today in general the 'PC Brigade' are a bunch of narrow minded bigots imho.

Ray.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Agreed Ray, largely.

There are plenty of idiotic objections to things of all kinds, I agree. What I doubt is that these various objections come from a single organised group which can be called a brigade.

Though I don't foresee a time coming when we can't express views or objections.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

PCB term is often used in shocking circumstances, as when those supporting the Canadian PMs 'blacking up' used it. Now being a white person some might not see the harm, but for a person of colour, we should accept their right to be offended and not shut down the deserved criticism as PC gone mad.

It's also been claimed that complaining about terms like, bum boys, letterbox woman etc is PC gone mad and again usually by folk with little understanding or care of the hurt it causes the targeted individuals.

Just because some things were tolerated 20, 50 or 100 years ago doesn't make it right. Society moves on, what was previously accepted as fine evolves so that some things are no longer acceptable, and rightly so.

Terry


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

This might amuse some.

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org...9uVHeeVx_wvQOTdZi-RuRA6nqvBskujbn85AjfgtpSW88

Ray.


----------



## Devonboy (Nov 19, 2009)

This post made me curious so I googled "PC Brigade". Some very interesting & some worrying entries.

Interesting article online at INDEPENDENT.IE titled "PC brigade is now the biggest threat to free and open debate": https://www.independent.ie/opinion/...-threat-to-free-and-open-debate-34959201.html

Worrying article online at The Spectator from journalist Kevin O'Sullivan titled "What happened when I was charged with a hate crime": https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/what-happened-when-i-was-charged-with-a-hate-crime/


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Very worrying Dave. Seems we now have to even be careful of answering back.

Ray.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Devonboy said:


> This post made me curious so I googled "PC Brigade". Some very interesting & some worrying entries.
> 
> Interesting article online at INDEPENDENT.IE titled "PC brigade is now the biggest threat to free and open debate": https://www.independent.ie/opinion/...-threat-to-free-and-open-debate-34959201.html
> 
> Worrying article online at The Spectator from journalist Kevin O'Sullivan titled "What happened when I was charged with a hate crime": https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/what-happened-when-i-was-charged-with-a-hate-crime/


Very interesting.

There's no doubt that there are plenty of questionable opinions and a plethora of shrinking violets who''l cry over nothing. Never the less I don't think that all of that comes from a single identifiable group called the PC Brigade.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

I guess at some point the whole thing will go full tilt again as it often has in the past when there have been extremes of social tolerance / intolerance.

I think that this news item demonstrates to me that the world has gone bonkers - I'll send the link to my 4 x 20's children and see what they think. They'll probably disagree and tell me that I'm being intolerant, old fashioned, politically incorrect.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-50571017


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Madness Peter. As so many things today.

Is the idea that children can't win or lose at anything because it might affect some who didn't win or in fact lose still in place?

Ray.


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

peribro said:


> I guess at some point the whole thing will go full tilt again as it often has in the past when there have been extremes of social tolerance / intolerance.
> 
> I think that this news item demonstrates to me that the world has gone bonkers - I'll send the link to my 4 x 20's children and see what they think. They'll probably disagree and tell me that I'm being intolerant, old fashioned, politically incorrect.
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-50571017


Methinks you should listen to your children a lot more.:wink2:


----------

