The UK Police, what's your opinion?

[Famine]

Cycling on the road is dangerous for the cyclists, but they can ameliorate that danger by having correct equipment and good situational awareness (and training). Cycling on the pavement is dangerous for everyone who isn't a cyclist and they cannot reasonably account for it.

We wouldn't allow motorbikists on the pavement simply because it's more dangerous for them to be on the road, and we wouldn't allow cyclists for the same reasons. It's a vehicle, not a feet.

 

[Liquid]

Cycling on the road is dangerous for the cyclists, but they can ameliorate that danger by having correct equipment and good situational awareness (and training).

I'm not a cycling enthusiast. They're just things that get me from A-B faster than walking. While I agree that cyclists themselves could do with better training, I also think that car drivers should show more respect. The road is not just for cars and cyclists shouldn't be squeezed so close to the pavement that they end up riding on it anyway. It's got to be a two way system.

Cycling on the pavement is dangerous for everyone who isn't a cyclist and they cannot reasonably account for it.

I'm not justifying cycling on the pavement, merely pointing out that for a meek lad like me, the pavement is safer alternative. It's not as though I'm bombing it as fast as I can in between groups of people; I do cycle on the road if it's empty and the paths are sparsely populated where I live. If I felt the roads were quite safe and didn't fear being knocked or sideswiped by a car due to some of the morans who are on the roads, then I'd definitely ride on the road every time, like I should. I ususally take the cycle path along the river anyway.

We wouldn't allow motorbikists on the pavement simply because it's more dangerous for them to be on the road, and we wouldn't allow cyclists for the same reasons. It's a vehicle, not a feet.

True. However, I'm of the opinion that motorcycles have more respect from other road users than bicycle users. And a bicycle is no more dangerous than a skateboard or roller blades, and I don't think they legally have to travel on the road. For anyone on the pavement, shopmobilities are the worst. They swagger about like they own the place. I think they are road legal vehicles but are driven on the pavement as a matter of convenience. But I could be wrong on that.

 

[Famine]

I'm not a cycling enthusiast. They're just things that get me from A-B faster than walking. While I agree that cyclists themselves could do with better training, I also think that car drivers should show more respect. The road is not just for cars and cyclists shouldn't be squeezed so close to the pavement that they end up riding on it anyway. It's got to be a two way system.

Car drivers are trained to give cyclists a car's width. In fact all vehicles. If they do not they are driving other than in accordance with the law and can face penalties including fines and points.

Cyclists, of course, have no licence on which to accrue points. Though they can, rarely, be added to a driving licence.

I'm not justifying cycling on the pavement, merely pointing out that for a meek lad like me, the pavement is safer alternative.

But only for you.

True. However, I'm of the opinion that motorcycles have more respect from other road users than bicycle users. And a bicycle is no more dangerous than a skateboard or roller blades, and I don't think they legally have to travel on the road.

I'm reasonably sure that they travel on the pavement but face similar penalties to cyclists if they do so irresponsibly.

For anyone on the pavement, shopmobilities are the worst. They swagger about like they own the place. I think they are road legal vehicles but are driven on the pavement as a matter of convenience. But I could be wrong on that.

If they're limited to 4mph, they can go on the pavement. I'm also not aware of anyone killing someone with them - though three deaths were recorded from cyclists hitting pedestrians on pavements between 1999 and 2009, this being the most recent one.

 

[ExigeEvan]

As a cyclist who's done quite some miles I'd take the road over the pavement any day.

Pedestrians, especially children and dogs, are a much more common hazard than an idiot behind a wheel.

 

[Liquid]

Car drivers are trained to give cyclists a car's width. In fact all vehicles. If they do not they are driving other than in accordance with the law and can face penalties including fines and points.

Cyclists, of course, have no licence on which to accrue points. Though they can, rarely, be added to a driving licence.

It's not just the training, it's the application. Drivers know they should give cyclists room, but probably all of us have at some point witnessed occasions when this is not so. Cycling is pretty dangerous full stop, but cars aren't always forgiving.

But only for you.

Indeed. I wasn't trying to suggest anything else.

I'm reasonably sure that they travel on the pavement but face similar penalties to cyclists if they do so irresponsibly.

Fair enough.

If they're limited to 4mph, they can go on the pavement. I'm also not aware of anyone killing someone with them - though three deaths were recorded from cyclists hitting pedestrians on pavements between 1999 and 2009, this being the most recent one.

It does happen, but rarely.

But dragging it back on topic. I've never been pulled for cycling on the pavement, but my friend has. Why the lack of enforcement? Do the police consider it too trivial on offence?

 

[Sureboss]

This. It's a complete lottery whether they enforce it or not though. I cycled to work when I had a bike, and went down the cycle path parallel to the main road as often as I could to avoid run-ins with over zealous policemen stopping bicycles. But there aren't any lights down this path so when it gets dark in the evenings, I would have to cycle down the main road. And I always go on the path because frankly, it's much safer compared to the lunatics behind the wheel in my town.

Anyway, long story short: I've cycled on the path past policecars in lay-bys and been lucky enough to have never been stopped. A collegue of mine wasn't so unlucky; £70 on the spot fine and being late for work was a dampner on his day.

Is it illegal to cycle on the pavement? Yes. Is it dangerous? No more dangerous than cycling elsewhere.

It's less dangerous for you and motorists, but more so (in the hands of idiots) for pedestrians.

In Brighton and Hove there are quite a few roads where the cycle line is a part of the road, but is cut off from the road by a very narrow piece of kerb. Great idea, though not suitable in many areas.

Proper Cycle lanes, where only cyclists are allowed is the only way forward, but you shouldn't be on the pavement. For people coming out of driveways, etc.

 

[Famine]

It's not just the training, it's the application. Drivers know they should give cyclists room, but probably all of us have at some point witnessed occasions when this is not so.

They should be reported. As should cyclists who ignore the Highway Code too - particularly the bits about one-way streets and red lights.

It does happen, but rarely.

Zing. The DfT response there isn't wholly accurate though. Act shocked

But dragging it back on topic. I've never been pulled for cycling on the pavement, but my friend has. Why the lack of enforcement? Do the police consider it too trivial on offence?

It's a few things stacked up - the main one of which can be solved with a cycling licence.

There's little to no traceability. They'll issue FPNs but, as the arse in the video shows, without arresting them, taking them to the station, keeping them for 24hr to try and confirm their identity, then having to release them without charge as you're unable to do so, you can't get a name. You can't charge them with anything and holding a dude for 24hr because you don't know who he is to give a £60 FPN to will get you a beating from the duty officer.

 

[Keef]

Well for a start he was riding a bicycle, at night, with no lights.

There's no law to make you wear a helmet, because at the end of the day it's your skull on the line (and sadly our ambulance workers who have to deal with it) but other vehicles have as much right to see you as you do to see them.

Life, liberty, property...I'm not really seeing how riding a bike without lights violates any of those, except for the fact that requiring lights violates the rider's liberty to ride his bike as he pleases, and his right to property through mandating that he spend his money on lights that he might not want to buy, or even be able to buy in some cases.

Funnily at 44 seconds another cyclist goes past with no lights...

Funnily, people still drive home from the bar all the time. Why? Well I guess it's because they want to, isn't it. Usually they make it home, but when they go about mussing somebody else's business they get convicted of mussing somebody else's business and they pay the consequences. It's illegal to drive drunk, but it's obviously a waste of a law because people do it anyway.

I suppose banning riding without lights is also a waste of a law because people do it anyway. When they screw it up they should pay the appropriate consequences, but in the mean time why can't a brother just ride his bike how he wants?

 

[ExigeEvan]

Life, liberty, property...I'm not really seeing how riding a bike without lights violates any of those, except for the fact that requiring lights violates the rider's liberty to ride his bike as he pleases, and his right to property through mandating that he spend his money on lights that he might not want to buy, or even be able to buy in some cases.

So how about driving a car with no lights at night? That's fine too? In British law a bicycle is a vehicle, a vehicle must use the road and not pedestrian, a vehicle must use lights so that it may see and be seen at night.

Funnily, people still drive home from the bar all the time. Why? Well I guess it's because they want to, isn't it. Usually they make it home, but when they go about mussing somebody else's business they get convicted of mussing somebody else's business and they pay the consequences. It's illegal to drive drunk, but it's obviously a waste of a law because people do it anyway.

I suppose banning riding without lights is also a waste of a law because people do it anyway. When they screw it up they should pay the appropriate consequences, but in the mean time why can't a brother just ride his bike how he wants?

Really want to try that one? So drink driving should be legal, until you kill someone. Cycling without lights should be legal, until you hit someone.

So any laws that protect others from your irresponsible actions are wrong? Really?

 

[Famine]

So drink driving should be legal, until you kill someone.

Drink driving should be legal, but considered premeditation for any illegal acts. Death by Dangerous Driving is a joke crime with a joke sentence - make it premeditated through DUI and you get murder. Life.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Drink driving should be legal, but considered premeditation for any illegal acts. Death by Dangerous Driving is a joke crime with a joke sentence - make it premeditated through DUI and you get murder. Life.

Then surely having a large amount of explosives and plans to blow up public transport should be legal as well?

The law needs to be pro-active, not just reactive.

 

[Famine]

Then surely having a large amount of explosives and plans to blow up public transport should be legal as well?

Does that make sense to you on its own, let alone as an argument?

You may as well say "If drink driving is illegal then surely having a conversation in a car and not paying attention to driving should be illegal as well.". It's unhelpful and avoids the issue entirely.

The law needs to be pro-active, not just reactive.

It is perfectly possible - in fact plausible - to drive to 80mg/ml completely safely, albeit with marginally increased reaction times compared to sobriety. These people should not be pulled over, arrested, punished and stigmatised by society for an arbitrary offence.

It is also perfectly possible - in fact plausible - to drive to 0mg/ml completely unsafely and yet legally. These people should not be pulled over and then allowed on their way for failing to commit an arbitrary offence.


People should be educated why things are bad, not simply told that they are and punished for ignoring it. Someone who is literally incapable of moving their car 50 feet without breaking road laws should be arrested for endangerment, whatever the blood (or breath) alcohol, before they cause issue - whether it's through drink, drugs, cough medicine, tiredness or receiving oral sex. Someone who can demonstrate sensible car control and obeyance of road laws should not be arrested simply because they missed an arbitrarily-drawn line.

Your lass who parked a MINI on a factory roof? Shouldn't be on the road. A guy who doesn't speed, doesn't crash, drives sensibly (proactively, to steal a word) shouldn't lose his job for 81mg/ml. What happens when we have our arbitrary blameline? The opposite.

The point of the law should be proactive - and it should be logical. The point is to prevent road accidents and deaths - failing to do so by ignoring the causes of road accidents and going after one headline-grabbing factor (so you can stigmatise a group) renders the law ineffective. An arbitrary line is not logical.

 

[Azuremen]

Life, liberty, property...I'm not really seeing how riding a bike without lights violates any of those, except for the fact that requiring lights violates the rider's liberty to ride his bike as he pleases, and his right to property through mandating that he spend his money on lights that he might not want to buy, or even be able to buy in some cases.

You take this too far sometimes, and really don't get it.

The light at night is so that other people can see you, not the other way around. Also, requiring lights to ride on publicly owned roads does not violate his right to property. By this logic, it violates someone's right to property to require them to have a vehicle license to drive their car.

Honestly, please stop using this logic because you are making libertarian views look bad.

 

[Famine]

Incidentally, USians... do you have breathalysers (or breathalyzers) and don't they breach the Fifth Amendment (bearing witness against oneself)?

 

[ExigeEvan]

Does that make sense to you on its own, let alone as an argument?

You may as well say "If drink driving is illegal then surely having a conversation in a car and not paying attention to driving should be illegal as well.". It's unhelpful and avoids the issue entirely.

Not paying attention is surely "driving without due car and attention". The difference is there is no premeditated action required to stop you having a conversation. For some people there doesn't even require there being a person in the car (though talking to yourself is quite a conversation, for a sane person).

Just like you won't be arrested for having household chemicals in the house and a list of local bus times.

It is perfectly possible - in fact plausible - to drive to 80mg/ml completely safely, albeit with marginally increased reaction times compared to sobriety. These people should not be pulled over, arrested, punished and stigmatised by society for an arbitrary offence.



People should be educated why things are bad, not simply told that they are and punished for ignoring it. Someone who is literally incapable of moving their car 50 feet without breaking road laws should be arrested for endangerment, whatever the blood (or breath) alcohol, before they cause issue - whether it's through drink, drugs, cough medicine, tiredness or receiving oral sex. Someone who can demonstrate sensible car control and obeyance of road laws should not be arrested simply because they missed an arbitrarily-drawn line.

Your lass who parked a MINI on a factory roof? Shouldn't be on the road. A guy who doesn't speed, doesn't crash, drives sensibly (proactively, to steal a word) shouldn't lose his job for 81mg/ml. What happens when we have our arbitrary blameline? The opposite.

The point of the law should be proactive - and it should be logical. The point is to prevent road accidents and deaths - failing to do so by ignoring the causes of road accidents and going after one headline-grabbing factor (so you can stigmatise a group) renders the law ineffective. An arbitrary line is not logical.

I can't argue there are plenty of poor drivers on the road, and the police don't do enough to punish or remove them from the road. Does that justify better drivers driving under the influence? I don't believe so.

Alcohol does inhibit people. Now that can act in different ways to different people. I know a guy that can complete several cognitive tests to a considerably high level after several strong drinks, but can't get an erection in the presence of a woman at the end of the night after similar amounts.

Some drivers might be able to keep their lane and negotiate a junction, but can they also judge a safe speed on a blind corner? If police have reason to believe you've left an establishment or area where you may have consumed alcohol then I'd be willing for them to do a breathalyser because a car crash all too often involves innocent victims.

Does it impede on some personal freedoms. Yes. Do I feel it's acceptable to have the privilege to use the public roads. Yes. Have I ever been pulled over. Nope.


Regarding the atrocious driving of my colleague, I hoped the police would act on the MINI case, I hoped she'd never drive again. But it appears the police don't act on her history of accidents and parents pay the increased insurance premiums to keep her on the road. And in a new BMW 120d coupe.

 

[BobK]

Incidentally, USians... do you have breathalysers (or breathalyzers) and don't they breach the Fifth Amendment (bearing witness against oneself)?

Yes we do have breathalyzers in the US, and you are free to refuse a breathalyzer test on fifth amendment grounds. However if you do, they will haul you down to the police station and hold you there until they can conduct some sort of less invasive test. Be assured that you will be there several hours. Presumably they will tow your car (at your expense of course) so as not to leave it on the side of the highway for several hours; safety precaution, you know.

 

[Famine]

Not paying attention is surely "driving without due car and attention". The difference is there is no premeditated action required to stop you having a conversation.

There is only one difference - that one has a nice, arbitrary line that you charge someone with and the other is unproveable.

Since the goal is to improve road safety, the offence should be the problem and not what caused the offence. Lack of concentration through talking to your passenger, talking on a phone, peeling an apple, pleasuring yourself, having 35mg/ml of alcohol or having 135mg/ml of alcohol - it makes no difference.

If road safety is the aim.

I can't argue there are plenty of poor drivers on the road, and the police don't do enough to punish or remove them from the road. Does that justify better drivers driving under the influence? I don't believe so.

Alcohol does inhibit people. Now that can act in different ways to different people. I know a guy that can complete several cognitive tests to a considerably high level after several strong drinks, but can't get an erection in the presence of a woman at the end of the night after similar amounts.

Some drivers might be able to keep their lane and negotiate a junction, but can they also judge a safe speed on a blind corner? If police have reason to believe you've left an establishment or area where you may have consumed alcohol then I'd be willing for them to do a breathalyser because a car crash all too often involves innocent victims.

None of that refutes the fact that "this value = drink driving" is arbitrary and not road safety-oriented. If someone can drive safely on the road while juggling flaming chainsaws where the teeth are actually scorpions with chainsaws for stings, with poisoned teeth, I don't give a damn - and you shouldn't either. If someone cannot drive safely on the road while sober, clean, awake, alert and without distractions, they shouldn't be there.

And what about drug levels? Ever taken a tablet that advises you not to operate heavy machinery? That's what a car is - where's the arbitrary line for over-the-counter-remedy-driving? How about high caffeine levels? Low caffeine/nicotine levels making you jittery? Sleep?


Alcohol levels? It's just a scapegoat. I'd rather be around pissed safe drivers than sober cretins.

Oddly, I was driving home from riding last night and I noticed in the first fifty yards that I made four separate errors in my spatial awareness. I wasn't drunk or wired, the ten year old next to me wasn't boring me rigid with horses, I wasn't on a phone, I wasn't playing with controls. I just made four errors in 50 yards - on a little country track. I realised that I'd been sitting in my nice warm coat in the horrific cold arena and was now sitting in a nice warm car driving very slowly down a quiet country track and it'd generated a soporific effect - I hadn't really slept properly the previous night, but it was only 7pm. I didn't feel tired or sleepy, but I was mentally tired - I wasn't processing information properly, but I'd noticed that I wasn't - I wasn't bad, I was just making errors. I shook myself down and did a better job of it until I could get in and have a coffee.

Had I been in a crash, it'd probably have ended up 50:50 blame (knock for knock) and no-one would have cared. Had I been drinking, been in a crash and blown a 36, I'd be 100% to blame, I'd have had 6 points, I'd have lost my jo... no scratch that one and I'd be stigmatised in the papers for drunk driving. Why? I'd probably have been no more dangerous - I had about 4 units tonight and, if I'd gone out for a drive (never happened), I'd have probably been more competent than last night while at least twice over the limit. I say probably - I've never tested it - but discounting the confidence boost of alcohol (which I don't get anyway), I feel as alert and awake as normal tonight and an order of magnitude more than last night. Plus I haven't fallen down stairs yet due to a lack of spatial awareness...


Alcohol should be treated as a causative factor for an incident, not a crime on its own. It (any alcohol at all) should be treated as premeditation - deliberate negligence - for an incident and carry a higher penalty as a result.

 

[Bobalob]

Removed

You will not use these forums to violate any laws nor to discuss illegal activities.

 

[Bobalob]

/thread

 

[homeforsummer]

You take this too far sometimes, and really don't get it.

The light at night is so that other people can see you, not the other way around. Also, requiring lights to ride on publicly owned roads does not violate his right to property. By this logic, it violates someone's right to property to require them to have a vehicle license to drive their car.

Honestly, please stop using this logic because you are making libertarian views look bad.

Was thinking the same thing. Being required to have lights on your bike at night is common sense.

Sure, you can consider it violating your right to not buy things you don't want, only if you don't mind your right to a correctly-shaped head being violated all over someone's windscreen.

 

[Azuremen]

Was thinking the same thing. Being required to have lights on your bike at night is common sense.

Sure, you can consider it violating your right to not buy things you don't want, only if you don't mind your right to a correctly-shaped head being violated all over someone's windscreen.

It might be common sense, but I don't believe the government should be telling people how to keep from hurting themselves. Which is why I disagree with seat belt laws, even if you're an idiot for not wearing one.

Mostly just find it hilarious Keef is saying it impedes ones right to ownership (property) by restricting them from using it government owned roads that others use. Further because failure to have lights increases the likely hood of being turned into by a car, or being cut off by a car. And a bike will cause property damage to the car. So it isn't as if not having lights is only a personal injury risk. Further applies if pedestrians walk out in front of a bike with no lights, or even if a car pulls out - which I've almost done a few times while living in a college town.

 

[BobK]

Actually that's a very good point. Although I see the "individual freedoms" argument as having more than a little merit, your doing so puts my car at a very real risk of damage if I can't see you.

 

[homeforsummer]

It might be common sense, but I don't believe the government should be telling people how to keep from hurting themselves. Which is why I disagree with seat belt laws, even if you're an idiot for not wearing one.

Worth pointing out it's not just the individual at stake - as you mention, though not necessarily for the damage to property reasons.

Like the inconsiderate gits who hurl themselves in front of trains at a station leaving the image burned onto a hundred peoples' minds for the rest of their lives, I'd rather a bike-riding idiot was required to have lights, and use them by law, so that I don't have to wipe their remains off my car and have the idiot's death on my conscience.

It's as inconsiderate to others as it is idiotic to the individual. I don't care if the world loses a few idiots, I'd just prefer not to accidentally be responsible for their deaths myself.

 

[NicoLoeb]

Worth pointing out it's not just the individual at stake - as you mention, though not necessarily for the damage to property reasons.

Like the inconsiderate gits who hurl themselves in front of trains at a station leaving the image burned onto a hundred peoples' minds for the rest of their lives, I'd rather a bike-riding idiot was required to have lights, and use them by law, so that I don't have to wipe their remains off my car and have the idiot's death on my conscience.

It's as inconsiderate to others as it is idiotic to the individual. I don't care if the world loses a few idiots, I'd just prefer not to accidentally be responsible for their deaths myself.

Here, here. Personally I see no reason why cyclists shouldn't have to have 3rd party insurance. Having had to negotiate a veritable army of unlit bicycles at night, even in thick fog usually wearing dark or even camouflage waterproofs I personally wish the police would stop these morons and take their bikes off them. Its all well and good to try to make it a question of individual liberties but having been forced to swerve into the oncoming lane because some stealth-idiot emerges from the dark I'm of the mind that its not the cyclists themselves who are most likely to be injured, or worse.

 

[Rich S]

My Dad was a serving member of the UK police force for 26 years, and many of our family friends are police officers as well.

I treat them with utmost respect, as the job they are doing for us is priceless in my opinion. However most police officers get no recognition what so ever, and are verbally abused and in some cases attacked for putting their lives on the line to keep us safe. As we have seen with PC David Rathband, in this extreme case shot with a shotgun, he was targeted for no apparent reason other than his profession.

Is this persecution of the police by a fairly large portion of people justified?

Pagey, in terms of death per capita food service delivery is more dangerous than being a police officer. Police do have a higher rate of suicide however. Did you know only 56 police officers were murdered in 2010 out of nearly 900,000 law enforcement personal in the USA?

I've had negative and positive experiences of police. Its tough for me to judge them as a whole. No doubt law enforcement is extremely necessary. Police interrogations are often times brought too far. I should know. I do believe that the standard of proof is where it should be (some people think its too high). I was once grilled on a case I knew nothing about. Some cops are nice, some are jerks.

Plenty of state troopers certainly love their jobs , so it cant be said that its a constant battle to hold back tears although they do deal with people daily whom are at the lowest point in their entire lives.

Like the inconsiderate gits who hurl themselves in front of trains at a station leaving the image burned onto a hundred peoples' minds

I'm a little perplexed at this statement. I'd think the others on the platform are the least of one's concerns when he's about to hurl in front of a train.

It reminds me of an old mad magazine article I saw a long time ago. Quite frankly, its a bit inappropriate.

 

[NicoLoeb]

Pagey, in terms of death per capita food service delivery is more dangerous than being a police officer.

That's it, you can collect your pizza from now on!

 

[Zenith]

I'm a little perplexed at this statement. I'd think the others on the platform are the least of one's concerns when he's about to hurl in front of a train.

Exactly. They're selfishly acting without concern to those who are present and will have to live with the memory.

 

[NicoLoeb]

The only reason suicide isn't legal is that the government haven't worked out a way to tax it....... yet!
With regard to the main thread, the police are a necessary evil. No one has a good word for them, til they need their help.

 

[Liquid]

The only reason suicide isn't legal is that the government haven't worked out a way to tax it....... yet!

They're working on it. Things like inheritance tax and so on.

 

[Tesla]

Teen charged over comment on troops.

And a more in-depth look into the issue. Language Warning

http://harrypaterson.co.uk/blog/a-tale-of-two-states-azhar-ahmed-and-scott-mchugh/

No one should be under any illusion regarding the increasingly oppressive nature of the UK state. The creeping criminalization of previously legal protest action has been seen countless times recently; students protesting against tuition fees and the politically-motivated sentences handed down to those convicted of last summer’s riots being just two of the most obvious examples.

Things have taken a very sinister and outrageous turn, though, with the arrest of nineteen year old Azhar Ahmed, who is due to appear before Dewsbury Magistrates on March 20th. It is alleged the youth recently posted the following comments on his Facebook page: “People gassin about the deaths of soldiers! What about the innocent familys who have been brutally killed.. The women who have been raped.. The children who have been sliced up..! Your enemy’s were the Taliban not innocent harmless familys. All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL! THE LOWLIFE FOKKIN SCUM! gotta problem go cry at your soliders grave & wish him hell because that where he is going..”

Strong words, to be sure, and undoubtedly offensive and upsetting to many, not least the bereaved families of serving soldiers. However, we’ll gloss over the tragic irony of his comments being lent substance by the rampage of a US serviceman, last Sunday, which resulted in the deaths of sixteen civilians, including nine children and three women. An irony further compounded by his comments apparently being motivated by what he felt was an imbalance in the coverage of casualties in Afghanistan. With blanket coverage given to the six recently killed British soldiers compared to that given to Afghan civlian casualties. It seems he at least has a point, however uncomfortable some might find his choice of words…

But that aside, the real concern here is the offence with which West Yorkshire Police have charged him, that of committing a “racially aggravated public order offence”. It’s difficult to see how his words, as reported, constitute racism in any way. Instead, significantly and worryingly, his comments amount to an overtly political statement. So; it seems we have a state which now deploys the flimsiest of legislation to silence political dissent. Set in the context of vicious austerity measures and the increasingly totalitarian methods used to suppress and quell the resulting protests, this marks a new and very serious attack on civil liberties and personal freedom.

However, don’t despair. It’s not all bad news. It seems we also have another state in operation. One which works in parallel to the one experienced by the unfortunate teenager. Under that state it appears perfectly acceptable for serving soldiers and their friends to post the most noxious and racist filth on Facebook without, thus far, incurring any sanctions.

On March 12th, one Scott McHugh, who appears to be a serving soldier, posted on his Facebook wall, in response to Ahmed’s comments, “Azhar ahmed you sick horrible twisted paki bastard, how can you say that about our soldiers!” McHugh was joined by several of his friends, some of whom commented as follows…

-Omitted for language-

Were all this not bad enough, try this on for size https://www.facebook.com/AzharAhmedScum

Welcome to justice and democracy, UK style. Right about now, I doubt I’m the only one with a grim smile, fearing for the future while hearing Joe Strummer intoning, ‘Know Your Rights’.