From the page: "This legislation not only attempts to stifle our ability to hold the police force to account for their actions, but also attacks the principles of open publishing on the internet. It must be resisted.
Join the mass action and oppose this ludicrous law.
"
From the page: "But the firm's first test â€" the deal to give $125 billion to the nine big banks to ease the "credit crunch" that is crippling the economy â€" wasn't exactly reassuring. Secretary Paulson promised that the banks won't just "hoard" the money â€" they will quickly "deploy it" through the economy in the form of badly needed loans. There is just one hitch: Neither Paulson nor Simpson Thacher got that "deploy" part in writing â€" nor did they put in place any mechanism to require the banks to spend their taxpayer billions. Apparently, the part about lending the money to homeowners and small businesses was sort of implied."
From the page: "However, she qualified this by adding: "Decisions may be made locally to restrict or monitor photography in reasonable circumstances. That is an operational decision for the officers involved based on the individual circumstances of each situation".
This is a very odd formula. If there is no legal restriction on photography, then it is not entirely clear what powers the local Chief Constable would use to enforce this non-existent restriction"
Blah blah blah, privacy long-forgotten, blah blah, UK police state blah.
No-one cares enough to do anything about it - stories like this seem to be the only "resistance". So if we resist and ask for our lawful rights, we'll be imprisoned for a few hours? Who's going to continue to resist? How can the decisions that led to this state of affairs be reversed? Well unless we can pull our heads out of the X-Factor for thirteen seconds, they can't.
I like them
Dec 2, 2008 11:16pm
Oct 18, 2008 5:44am
Meet another member
