5 ms·
Because nobody makes any money with civil liberties... "Police will have powers to enter private homes and seize posters, and will be able to stop people carry
by ulf 17y ago
Because nobody makes any money with civil liberties...
"Police will have powers to enter private homes and seize posters, and will be able to stop people carrying non-sponsor items to sporting events." The second part is just as scary in my opinion
- ErrantX 17y agoIndeed - do you know if the Olympic grounds are public or private?
- ulf 17y agoI would suspect they are private for the duration of the Games.
- Quarrelsome 17y agoYea but how many policeman are actually going to do that? They already refused changes to enable them to possess guns due to the problems it would cause them. I wonder if they'd refuse to do this or not, or just "pretend" to do it and not actually bother.
- Periodic 17y agoI doubt anyone will be seizing your Pepsi if the games were sponsored by Coke, but they might have a case for not letting you set up your Pepsi-points gear under the coke sign.
- awa 17y agoThis might happen and some sort of the does happen in Cricket. During the Cricket world cup the TV channel showing the event isn't allowed to show competitor's ads. Also, the players are not allowed to be part of any kind of competitor ad for the entire duration of the tournament. And yes, the English are used to this.
- jey 17y agoThat's still way too close for comfort. "Oh, don't mind these laws, we don't actually enforce them except when it's really necessary. We're on your side! Just trust us." It's just a small step from suddenly "needing" to question what constitutes "really necessary". We should be resisting tyranny as it creeps up on us, not remain complacent until after it becomes a true crisis.
- jwecker 17y agoIf the venue is privately owned the second part doesn't scare me. I believe any privately owned property has the right to refuse entry to anyone they wish, and that that right trumps civil liberties. WHICH is why the first part of the story is a terrifying encroachment on liberty. No warrant? No laws broken? To have them simply enter and dictate what you're allowed to display on your own property? No way to refuse entry?
- regularfry 17y agoWhat's frightening is that it's specifically a police power. If the private property owner wants to enforce private rules, they should pay for private security guards to do it. Why should public money be used for this? EDIT: On further thought, it's worse. The article implies that police will have the power to remove items from people on the way to an event. That would be hideous if true. I want a corroborative source before I get too worked up about this, though.
- nicoara 17y agohere it is : http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/21/olympics2012-civil-liberties http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/21/olympics2012-civil-...
- regularfry 17y agoThat corroborates one part but not the other, more worrying (but less likely) aspect.
- uygtfgh 17y agoThey had that power and more for Vancouver. They even copyrighted a line from the national anthem. What made Vancouver such a success is the low key policing. 6000 police + RCMP + army and they made 93 arrests (mostly drunk+disorderly), one policeman was slightly hurt when he broke a window stopping a fight. The result is the best press for the VPD in living memory. Now picture the Met's response to any sort of demo in London.