villal

so we are not in a crisis and panic mode now ?

this is the worse for two generations I think actions have to be done now, the consequences can only be seen later for good or bad

I don't think theres any doubt that we are in crisis

However, I think what it refers too here is the threat of martial law witnessed by senators just prior to the passing of the bailout bill.

youtube link here

Senator Warns White House Will 'Create Crisis' and 'Panic' to Push Stimulus

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., criticizes mainstream media for not reporting loads of pork in proposed legislation.

Is the new Obama administration taking cues from the Bush administration to get Congress to act? It certainly seemed that way to, South Carolina’s junior Republican senator, Jim DeMint.

DeMint, speaking Jan. 27 at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., explained the Obama administration will “create crisis and widespread panic” just like its predecessor in order to get Congress to act expeditiously

“I’ve been around long enough to know whenever someone tells me I have to make a decision right now, my response is no,” DeMint said. “That clears it up right away and I think more and more the Bush administration and now this administration knows that they’re not going to get a quick reaction out of Congress unless they create crisis and widespread panic. And that’s going to be their M.O. to get Congress to act.”

Another senator, James Inhofe, R-Okla., explained the Bush administration used a similar tactic, under the direction of former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, to get the $700-billion TARP bailout bill passed by Congress back on Oct. 4, 2008.

DeMint said some Republicans now regret they voted for the TARP package, even though there is no way to gauge what might have happened had it not been passed.

more here

those that deny that we are becoming a police state are either blind or ignorant or both (IMO)

I am neither blind (but I did need some hospital assistance recently for an eye problem - the NHS was superb) nor ignorant - I could easily counter that with those that say we are are ignorant and / or paranoid but I wont.

Fair enough thats the beauty of it being an opinion - neither are necessarily correct

From wikipedia (yes i know!)

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility

- proposed ID cards?

and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views

- proposed Internet Filtering

which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic

-proposed snooping/hacking by police / MI5

Routinely or not - not acceptable as far as I am concerned without a specific legal warrant

those that deny that we are becoming a police state are either blind or ignorant or both (IMO)

Wasn't sure whether this should go in t'internet or police thread

THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant.

The move, which follows a decision by the European Union’s council of ministers in Brussels, has angered civil liberties groups and opposition MPs. They described it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state which drives “a coach and horses” through privacy laws.

The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room.

Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging

More here

Hmmmm, this sucks - they can go f*#k themselves

OOOPS - Already posted above!!!!

It was a little before 8 at night when the breaker went out at Emily Milburn's home in Galveston. She was busy preparing her children for school the next day, so she asked her 12-year-old daughter, Dymond, to pop outside and turn the switch back on.

As Dymond headed toward the breaker, a blue van drove up and three men jumped out rushing toward her. One of them grabbed her saying, "You're a prostitute. You're coming with me."

Dymond grabbed onto a tree and started screaming, "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy." One of the men covered her mouth. Two of the men beat her about the face and throat.

As it turned out, the three men were plain-clothed Galveston police officers who had been called to the area regarding three white prostitutes soliciting a white man and a black drug dealer.

more here

I'm quite speechless to be honest

Federal Reserve Characteristics of a Crime Syndicate Faces Lawsuits

The principal missing piece in the grand American mosaic of banking destruction, corrupt collusion, fraudulent bonds, Wall Street control, suppressed regulators, compromised ratings agencies is JUSTICE . Foreign entities are aghast as the lack of prosecution, remedy, and removal from positions of power, as policy continues to be set by the participants responsible for the structural failure and prevalent fraud. Their actions are reaching climax levels. The climax of the Wall Street strangehold is the confiscation of the TARP funds to date. However, whatever has not been nationalized is subject to lawsuits . The pattern of human behavior indicates that lawsuits can spawn additional lawsuits, and quickly control is lost. It is open season on Citigroup, Bank of America, and perhaps other lesser players.

Two major lawsuits have the potential to change the landscape. Curiously, neither receives much publicity. Then again, the press seems somewhere between subservient and compromised anyway. They have failed to shine many lights on much of any developments until after the damage is done. Odd court cases, missing people, factional politics, and border patrols seem more important on their agendas. Much of the US media & press seem a graduation of National Inquirer to television.

more here

The Federal Reserve has bluntly refused a request by a major US financial news service to disclose the recipients of more than $2 trillion of emergency loans from US taxpayers and to reveal the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral. Their lawyers resorted to the bizarre argument that they did so to protect 'trade secrets.' Is the secret that the US financial system is de facto bankrupt? The latest Fed move is further indication of the degree of panic and lack of clear strategy within the highest ranks of the US financial institutions. Unprecedented Federal Reserve expansion of the Monetary Base in recent weeks sets the stage for a future Weimar-style hyperinflation perhaps before 2010.

On November 7 Bloomberg filed suit under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requesting details about the terms of eleven new Federal Reserve lending programs created during the deepening financial crisis.

The Fed responded on December 8 claiming it's allowed to withhold internal memos as well as information about 'trade secrets' and 'commercial information.' The central bank did confirm that a records search found 231 pages of documents pertaining to the requests.

The Bernanke Fed in recent weeks has stepped in to take a role that was the original purpose of the Treasury's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The difference between a Fed bailout of troubled financial institutions and a Treasury bailout is that central bank loans do not have the oversight safeguards that Congress imposed upon the TARP. Perhaps those are the 'trade secrets the hapless Fed Chairman,Ben Bernanke, is so jealously guarding from the public.

More on Link

Not in the UK, but worrying all the same.. :shock:

And no its not from a syndicated news source, therefore probably more reliable

The NSA’s new data-mining facility is one component of a growing local surveillance industry

Surrounded by barbwire fencing, the anonymous yet massive building on West Military Drive near San Antonio’s Loop 410 freeway looms mysteriously with no identifying signs of any kind. Surveillance is tight, with security cameras surrounding the under-construction building. Readers are advised not to take any photos unless you care to be detained for at least a 45-minute interrogation by the National Security Agency, as this reporter was.

There’s a strangely blurry line during such an interrogation. After viewing the five photos I’d taken of the NSA’s new Texas Cryptology Center, the NSA officer asked if I would delete them. When I asked if he was ordering me to do so, he said no; he was asking as a personal favor. I declined and was eventually released.

America’s top spy agency has taken over the former Sony microchip plant and is transforming it into a new data-mining headquarters — oddly positioned directly across the street from a 24-hour Walmart — where billions of electronic communications will be sifted in the agency’s mission to identify terrorist threats

more here on the link

It winds me up that they get away with this! The Tax payer bailed out the banks and we were screaming blue murder as we would not see the benefit of it in our pockets so this was a chance to actually give us something back! The government should grab hold of both these groups by the bollox and make them! but no! they won't do nothing and the fat cats will get fatter!!

I think its becoming more transparent with regard to who is in charge, and its not that one eyed clearing in the woods in Downing St

They keep referring to destruction of the sample - I haven't seen any reference to removal of the profile from databases - or have I got that wrong?

I can see a future where everyones DNA is taken at birth.

There will be lots of bollocks excuses and media manipulation as per usual...

Remember innocent people have nothing to fear, apart from being fitted up

I have little doubt that the sample may be destroyed however I can't imagine that the digitised DNA profile is deleted, left on a train perhaps but not deleted

:winkold:

More from the Telegraph..busy today by the looks of things

When the Government introduced its ID card legislation several years ago, it made one thing clear. Even though it would be obligatory to register on the ID database when obtaining a new passport, it would not be compulsory to carry a card.

This has led some people to assume that the scheme is voluntary. It is not, except insofar as someone whose passport has expired is happy never to travel abroad again. But ministers recognised that the scope for ID ‘matrydom’ was high if people were forced to carry an ID card.

The last identity system was abolished in 1952 following a celebrated case prompted by the refusal of a man called Clarence Willcock to produce his card when required to by a police officer. Mr Willcock reasoned that as the war that necessitated their introduction was over, he had no need to carry ID with him. The Government wanted to avoid creating an army of Clarence Willcocks so deliberately did not make it a legal requirement to carry ID.

more on the link

In a couple of papers today:

Daily Mail

Telegraph

Clauses in the draft Immigration and Citizenship Bill give state officials the power to make anyone who has ever entered the country, at any time, prove who they are without needing any suspicion of a potential crime.

Civil liberty groups warned that the catch-all clauses would effectively cover any British citizen who has ever left the UK, even for a holiday, because they will have "entered" the UK on their return.

Refusing to hand over the necessary documents would be a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of almost a year in prison and/or a hefty fine.

Officers will also be able to hold someone until they meet the requirements and can even demand a medical examination, although that will be more targeted at foreign nationals arriving from countries with high health risks of contagious diseases.

Critics said the move would see a return to war-time Britain where citizens had to carry their "papers" with them and accused the Government of bringing in compulsory ID cards by the back door.

Phil Booth, national coordinator of the NO2ID campaign, said: "We have not had any sort of law like this outside of war time.

"In practice it will be impossible to determine who has or has not entered the UK and therefore this applies to anyone in the UK."

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne added: "This is potentially a catch-all power which would allow the police or the officials to arrest and hold anyone who was unable to prove their own identity.

"The Government has always promised that it would never introduce such a draconian intrusion into our daily lives."

The clauses in the Bill, contained in the Queen's Speech, were unearthed by civil rights group Liberty and centre on a power to examine those who "arrive in, enter or seek to enter the UK".

A sub-clause refers to anyone who "has entered the UK" and can therefore mean anyone who has entered either recently or in the past.

It means police or immigration officers would have the power to stop anyone, either at a port of entry or inside the country, and demand their identity purely on the basis they may have entered the UK at some point.

Clause 28 gives the power to require the production of a passport or other valid identity document.

A Liberty spokeswoman said: "This extends powers of examination to several new categories including anyone in the UK (whether a British citizen or not) who has ever left the UK at any time. "

Currently, police or immigration officers can ask for identity if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime or immigration offence.

The Liberty spokeswoman added: "Clause 28(3) dramatically changes this premise allowing identity documents to be demanded of anyone that has at any time entered the UK by anyone authorised by the Secretary of State. No suspicion of criminality or immigration offending is required."

She said it went "far beyond" what is reasonable for immigration control, adding: "We believe that the catch-all remit of this power is disproportionate and that its enactment would not only damage community relations but would represent a fundamental shift in the relationship between the State and those present in the UK."

Around eight in ten UK citizens have a passport and the majority of those will have left the country at some point and therefore have "entered" again.

The clauses are in the draft bill to be put forward in the Queen's Speech.

They say refusal to submit to demands for identification would be a criminal offence that carries a maximum penalty of no more than 51 weeks in prison and or a £5,000.

The Government is currently rolling out the controversial ID cards programme for both foreign nationals and Britons but has insisted it will not be compulsory for Britons to carry the cards.

But Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said: "Sneaking in compulsory identity cards via the back door of immigration law is a cynical escalation of this expensive and intrusive scheme.

Shadow Immigration Minister, Damian Green, added "This scheme will do nothing to improve our security, may make it worse, and will certainly land the tax-payer with a multi-million pound bill.

"Labour should be concentrating their efforts on things that will actually improve our security, like a dedicated UK Border police force, instead of trying to introduce ID cards through the back door.

"Now more than ever the issue of our basic freedoms is very important."

A Home Office spokeswoman insisted there were no plans to make it compulsory for British citizens to carry or produce forms of identity.

She said: "It is simply wrong to claim there are any plans whatsoever to make identity cards compulsory for British citizens or to require British citizens to have their ID card – or any other form of ID – on them at all times and to present it when asked to do so.

"From next year British citizens will have the convenience of being able to use identity cards to travel in Europe, but they will not become the only way to prove your identityat borders and the UK passport will still be valid.

"In order to maintain an effective immigration control it is only right that we ask everyone attempting to enter to the UK to produce a valid identity document."

But Mr Booth said it was "appallingly-drafted legislation", adding: "They have got to the point that we must take the worst possible implication of the legislation."

Seems to me that this basically gives power to the police to stop anyone who has ever left the country, and if they cannot produce ID they will be held.

And presumably if there is no one looking give a few digs to them whilst on the ground <--- Joke

There are people suggesting that a "global" union is a good thing, thats one step away from a one world government - erm no thanks

screw the EU

I don't see why the cards cant incorporate data such as passport info.

IMO, this would cut the need for the goverment to hold data on people.

.

Cards such as these will most probably utilise RFID technology, whilst no where near an expert on this technology I understand that RFID is not at all secure

This could be an opportunity for a crap film to be made into a good film.....

I'm not sure where to start...

Could the UK be the perpetrator in this imaginary scenario?

It depends also if the war isn't founded on lies, lies and more lies

it doesn't help when things like this are going on

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

more on link..

The bailout money was supposedly to kick start the economy

Also agree with kidlewis that people who don't even turn up at the polling station have no right to whinge about politics. IMO.

by whinge presumably you mean discuss? :winkold:

I personally would turn up, my vote would be spoiled as follows ..

None of the above X

Edited: my opinion for what its worth is that you will see no real difference no matter who is in "power" now, 2 heads of the same snake so to speak, metaphorically

Dexter by a good margin!

Good call

What about Supernatural? :evil:

I don't think this is a moral dilemma at all, perhaps Morals conflicting with legality

A moral decision would have the innocent party's best interests at heart which is surely the child staying with the new family

Legally however the uncle has committed a crime and the child should be reunited with her parents

IMO of course

The Secretary of Defense is briefing President Bush on Iraq. "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"Oh no!" exclaims the president, "That's terrible!"

His staff is stunned at this unprecedented display of emotion, watching as Bush sits, head in hands.

Finally, he looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"