User blogs
Un peuple n’a qu’un ennemi dangereux, c’est son gouvernement.
Now for the LOOOOOOOOLZ the latest news from the O9A Cabaret:
I have some forty years experience of interaction with the police, from ordinary constables and detectives, to custody sergeants, to officers from specialist branches such as SO12, SO13, and crime squads. During that time, I have known far more good police officers than bad – corrupt – ones. Furthermore, I realized that most of those I came into contact with were good individuals, motivated by the best of intentions, who were trying to do their best, often under difficult circumstances, and often to help victims of dishonourable deeds, catch those responsible for such deeds, and/or prevent such deeds…
So the cops are no longer the guardians of the oppressive Magian System or the prime example of the Homo Hubris or whatever. Now, they are honorable individuals motivated by an instinct for honor and fairness, not by the cash they get, no, just no. A job of a policeman is like any other job. There is nothing honorable or dishonorable about it. You do what you are paid for.
In truth they, those officers, as one of them once said to me, were guided by what ‘was laid down’ and did not presume to or tried hard not to overstep their authority; guided as they were by the law, that accumulated received wisdom of what was and is good in society…
Yeah the law reflects the accumulated wisdom of what is good in a society, rather then the arbitrary whims of this or that government, riiiight. And sure, the police must act according to the rules, no matter how ridiculous.
…a law which (at least in Britain and so far as I know) saught to embody a respect for what was fair and which concept of fairness was and always has been (again, at least in Britain and so far as I know) untainted, uncorrupted, by any political ideology.
LMAO! This really made my day. The law has nothing to do with the politics. No fucking way! It’s not the politicians that make the law, no way.
Now I know, I understand, I appreciate, that for that reason – of so being mindful of the limits of their authority, of being guided by what had been laid down over decades – those people, those police officers, were far better individuals than the arrogant, the hubriatic, extremist I was…
Don’t worry. Cameron has a way to deal with the likes of you, soon… Which brings us back to:
Extremists – The Modern Boogeymen.
David Cameron has just announced his new counter-terrorism bill, which is directed against the so-called non-violent extremists; people who don’t even incite violence but simply have and express radical views or, to put it bluntly, the views that are not politically correct. Anyone who expresses views that the government views as extreme will have to apply for permission to post in newspapers or online. Those judged as extremists will have to submit their material to the police for approval before they can publish it. The groups and organizations seeking to undermine democracy will be banned. The bill targets mainly Islamic groups but it can also have a negative impact on National Socialists and any other group inconvenient to the government.
The new law will also ban the radicals from giving speeches and lectures at the universities. There are plans to draw the list of speakers banned from the universities. If such a list is created, the universities will have to obey and refuse entry to the unwelcome visitors. The point is to protect young people from being drawn to radicalism.
The criterion for inclusion in the list would be the holding and promoting of non-violent extremist views (violent extremism being already banned). So, quite naturally, my fellow dons and I have been asking ourselves what constitutes an ‘extremist’ view. After all, one man’s extremist is another man’s purveyor of common sense. And, in any case, ‘freedom of speech within the law’ means nothing if it does not encompass the freedom to articulate very unpopular views and if it does not uphold, unequivocally, the right to give offence.
If ‘non-violent extremists’ can’t express their views at universities, where can they?
Prince Charles is also worried about radicalization of young people. In his opinion, the crazy stuff on the internet is definitely to blame:
Young people in Britain are being radicalised at an “alarming” rate, the Prince of Wales has said… “This is one of the greatest worries, I think, and the extent to which this is happening is the alarming part, and particularly in a country like ours where you know the values we hold dear,” he said… “The frightening part is that people can be so radicalised either by contact with somebody else or via the internet, and the extraordinary amount of crazy stuff which is on the internet…”
This is just Great Britain but everywhere terrorism is used as a convenient scarecrow to convince gullible masses to give up more and more of their constitutional “rights” in the name of security. Hate speech is another scarecrow used to limit free speech in the name of democracy and tolerance.
Hmm… perhaps, this is the reason behind the latest O9A comedy/comedies; moron Camoron’s antics. But don’t be fooled, ladies and gentlemen, appearances are misleading. The rumor has it that one of Cameron’s trusted advisors is an O9A spy. The proposed referendum on British membership of the EU is actually his idea. The aim is to let the damn European Union fall apart and speed up the coming of the Empire of Vindex. The ooky spooky O9A tribes in Britain also plan to kidnap the Royal Baby and demand a huge ransom that will totally ruin the government budget.
