The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
British Big Brother keeps on watching
One of the most galling things is to see the state use the appartus it sets up under the pretense of protecting society to trample our freedoms. When the concept of a sex offender registry was started many years ago, no one objected. After all, who could object to tracking the worst of our society and who prey on children. Then the state expanded the definition of sex offender to anyone convicted of sexual assault (and this is more so in the US states). Now the British government is thinking of putting abusive partners (read men) on a list and warn their future partners about the perils of dating and marrying the offenders on the list. Of course, no word on whether you have to be convicted or merely accused be put on the list. No word on how long the list stays for. And for God's sake what is the stated doing getting into the marriage/dating counselling business.
We have always wondered why, as citizens, we cannot go online with all this wonderful electronic access and read the files of anyone convicted of a crime - or learn if the police have a warrent out for them before we rent them an apartment
if the police & Lawyers can access this information, which is out there to be read- why can't citizens ? Why shouldn't citizens ?
Its not gossip or hearsay if the legal courts prepare it, based on due process and judgment in an open and impartial public court
why a registry of certain offenses only ? Why not the whole record of every lawbreaker for all the world- employers, mates and family to see ?
Don't do the crime if you don't want to hear the chime
Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-11 11:23:13 PM
As long as its guys convicted of battering instead of just accused I'm fine! I have no problem with a sex offenders registry. For God sakes, I have sisters. I want to know that the guy they are dating is not going to beat them, rape them or kill them. This knowledge is also for the sickos benefit. Trust me they would be screwed if they messed with my family. I think lighting them like a Molotov cocktail would be too generous. What other options does a Canadian have? After all, this is a soft on crime nation. We can't hang the lowlifes.
If you want to complain about Britain, I have a story for you. 200 British soldiers arrived home from Iraq to have their homecoming parade disrupted by radical Muslim nuts! These pieces of filth held signs calling the soldiers baby killers, racists, and war criminals. Some also tried to spit at the troops. The British police ended up arresting two British men who were among the several hundred that were supporting the troops. I wish the cops had found something to charge those little radical sobs with! This together with a video of a radical demonstration in London(shown here) provide more proof of radicals run amok there. These nuts are allowed to call for the downfall of the country. They are allowed to go into the street and try to intimidate anyone they disagree with. What is the result? The politically correct Labor Party gives into them. They ban Geerts Wilder but allow people who say far more despicable things and resort to thuggery to rule the streets. Before we talk about Britain's troubling surveillance society, lets talk about the political correctness that is the fatal cancer infecting that society. Britain is doing the equivalent of putting a loaded .38 to its head. DO you really think Canada is that far behind?
Posted by: Jim | 2009-03-12 12:00:44 AM
In at least one state, if a man pulls over to the side of the road and walks into the woods to relieve himself, he can be arrested on public exposure laws. This then puts him on the sex offender list, including the requirement that if he moves to another state he must register with them as sex offender. Yes, it can happen here.
Posted by: Tregonsee | 2009-03-12 5:22:58 AM
What state is that? And is that law enforced or is it more like the ope that says you can't jump rope on Sunday on the town common?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-12 6:36:58 AM
1. Anyone can go to the Court House and have a criminal record search done on someone, for a fee.
2. 'Sexual assault' is a very broad category. It includes everything from copping a feel, once, on a dance floor, at drunken party, to rape. So what would it really tell you if you knew that someone had a record for sexual assault?
3. There are inherent biases in these criminal records. If two people fall into bed one night, drunk, only one of them risks waking up a rapist the next morning. What does that tell you?
4. Suppose the rumors are true that Rihanna (a) invaded Chris Brown's privacy by rifling through his text messages while he was driving and could not stop her; (b) became so insanely jealous when she saw a text from another woman that she took off her shoe and started pounding on his head with the stiletto - causing wreckless endangerment to the public, and risking property damage to a $150,000 Lambourghini; (c) resisted requests and physical efforts to stop her assault, refused to get out of the car when Brown [no relation] stopped (trespass), and continued the altercation; and (d) filed a false report to police about the incident, failing to mention her own contribution to the incident. What is Brown's criminal conviction for assault going to tell you?
Blasting people's criminal records onto the internet is revealing both too much, and too little. It's just a bad idea, as are all politically correct ideas.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-03-12 5:43:46 PM
so learning about someones bad social manners before they happen to you is a politically correct?
We are not talking bum pats here pal, or straying off the sidewalk three inches- nor is this weeks Hollywood gossip really about what we are on about-- we are talking "finding out, in advance" before he hire someone, rent them soace, loan them money or place them in any position of trust---if there is a tendency to commit fraud, do violence, light fires and traffic drugs-- alcohol and drug problems...stealing things, false witness, we wanna hear about it..
Do you want to eb a stastistic?- the rest of us don't
-- you know, get a handle on the ten commandment stuff without going down to a courthouse .. you know access essential information while its still possible to do something about it.. Anything the police write down we would like to b able to read it as well-- on the internet: that unregulated public access thing..
Good people have nothing to worry about their criminal record - creeps _do have something to worry about t heir criminal record..
Your friend Rihanna ( above ) will be a better person for having her dark side shown in the light of day.. see? you are ratting her out on the internet - we never knew any of this trash till you shared it, Thanks for being politically correct It wasn't that hard to overcome your own tendencies to shrug off your duty to the truth, was it??
Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-12 7:34:47 PM
Y'all try to get this straight now.
Everything female, gay , colored, handicapped , native is good.
Everything male and white is bad.
Everyone who is abusive or molests children is either white or male.
See how simple this is ?? Now we all know how this logic turns to law. By the way , if a child falls down and hurts himself/herself , for god's sake don't pick them up or try to comfort them or you'll wind up on the list.Unless you'r female of course.
Posted by: peterj | 2009-03-12 9:41:56 PM
419, "Good people have nothing to worry about their criminal record" are famous last words.
What if its possible that in an effort to make our society safer by allowing the state more power, it actually becomes more dangerous?
History tells us this is so.
Posted by: TM | 2009-03-12 10:39:27 PM
you fear the state? we are cautious of the rascals walking around
obtaining data on a state website is taking power _from the state not empowering the state.. unless you like nasty surprises, we don't
danger is what we have now- that being the state knows the criminal tendencies of the people and records them for the benefit of the state - the people themselves don't know who amongst them i' an asshole, but the state knows from her own records- we have to find out the hard way..no thanks
the worst of all possible famous last words is likely the expression " oops! "
Posted by: 419 | 2009-03-12 11:37:27 PM
As things currently stand, you may do whatever background checks you please. You can check criminal records, you can get references, you can hire or private eye, you can do a credit check, and you can ask the person-of-interest to you to consent to a urine analysis - and pay for any or all of the above, among other things.
What you should not be able to do is have for free, and without the person-of-interest's ability to respond, highly prejudicial information that is highly suspect - and, since government operated, likely to be highly inaccurate.
If you don't appreciate the dangers of this politically correct scheme, then you don't have relevant life experience to be making a judgment about it.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-03-12 11:43:20 PM
Your concept would be the same as the "No fly list" then??.Same efficiency. Over a million names on it, including children and seniors. Almost impossible to get the mistake rectified. If this is the efficiency you have no problem with, then make damn sure your "significant other" never gets pissed off with you.
Posted by: peterj | 2009-03-13 12:06:20 AM
Man, the UK is a toilet.
Posted by: Buddha Chan | 2009-03-13 11:06:09 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.