Slashdot Mirror
"War On Terror" Board Game Confiscated In UK
An anonymous reader writes "The board game The War On Terror is a satirical game in which George Bush's 'Axis of Evil' is reduced to a spinner in the middle of the board, which determines which player is designated a terrorist state. That person then has to wear a balaclava (included in the box set) with the word 'Evil' stitched onto it. Kent police said they had confiscated the game because the balaclava 'could be used to conceal someone's identity or could be used in the course of a criminal act.' Balaclavas are freely sold all over the place in the area." Schneier has blogged this stupidity, of course.
One of which is that this is great publicity for the game and will surely increase sales.
I agree with you there. Sometimes Police take matters in their own hands when they should be busy enforcing the actual laws on the books. In addition many police just act above the law when off duty simply because they are police during the day. Really the police should be policed more rigorously then the general public.
They need the "Police in free country crack down on their own people for idiotic reasons and abusing their authority thereby turning free country into a less-free country thereby aiding the terrorists" card.
I am older, and was raised to always trust a policeman.
As an adult, I rarely say this: My parents were wrong.
The Republic is now an Empire.. with the centurions carrying assault rifles
Rei Publicae Scutum no longer...
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
I don't hate police, mostly because I respect their job and understand the difficulties that arise from it. For instance, they were probably sent in there to confiscate all materials related to crimes. It wasn't that they decided "hey, lets go steal this board game" it was lets take everything in here that could possibly be related to crimes in any way. That being said, I do agree that it is ridiculous that they took the board game, it's just not a good enough reason to "hate the police."
But why don't they have the capacity to think. Can't they go back to the station empty handed and simply say all they found was a board game?
Jonathanjk.com
I am older, and was raised to always trust a policeman.
As an adult, I rarely say this: My parents were wrong.
The Republic is now an Empire.. with the centurions carrying assault rifles
when I traveled to the UK, many years ago, I ran into the same sentiment - that 'ask a friendly policeman on the corner' if you need help or have a question. nice friendly guys (....)
that ship has sailed. now, the current wisdom is to never talk to cops (2) never talk to cops (1)
this is BOTH a copy AND a lawyer giving this advice!
clearly, they are not anymore representing 'the will of the people'. they are anti-freedom and you would be best advised to consider the huge risk by even talking to them, even if you are innoncent. a slip of a casual word CAN be used against you and there is never ever 'off the record' when you talk to cops.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
We have nothing to fear but the state itself
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
There should also be an effort made to ensure that the Police are in fact aware of what the laws are.
Atheil said: That being said, I do agree that it is ridiculous that they took the board game, it's just not a good enough reason to "hate the police."
May I credit you as the inspiration for the Atheil Doctrine?
The Atheil Doctrine
The probability that the police are considered trustworthy, professional, and "not worth hating" is inversely proportional to whether you've been the recipient of police criminal behavior, misconduct, or overzealousness.
go watch BOTH, videos, dude. its a cop AND a lawyer. no, its not someone who THINKS they are a lawyer, its the real deal and he's giving valid legal advice.
if you don't believe him, why would you reject the cop's view - it ALSO echo's the same thing. he goes into detail about how they are TRAINED to probe you for info and even an innocent statement can hang you by the 'nads.
this is not 'an interesting video' it should be REQUIRED READING/WATCHING in civics class. people must be taught that the state is now to be held with strong distrust. in fact, that was some of the basic operational concepts in the founding of america!
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
OK then you racist, authoritarian tosser, let me tear apart your idiotic rambling
1. His overstaying his visa has nothing to do with it. The punishment for that is not summary execution, outside your right-wing fantasies.
2. He was never given a warning to stop, you are simply lying. If you think otherwise, provide a credible claim for this source of stop pissing on the poor mans grave.
3. The idea that he ran in response to the presence of the police is absurd because the police who were tailing him were in plain clothes. He had no idea what was going on until they entered the carriage and murdered him. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
4. Shut the fuck up you BNP loving organ of the police state, and have some respect for an innocent victim of extreme police brutality.
Scum like you make me ashamed of Britian.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
The only way law enforcement can truly hold any power over mind is if the command equal parts fear and admiration.
With this lack of discretion becoming more common, people are losing both.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
He was shot by someone doing their job. If you're going to blame people, at least blame the right people. It was the superiors who made the mistake. If you're the member of a firearms squad and State Red is declared as you're running after a suspected terrorist who just got on a train, then you can hardly be blamed for shooting the person when he looks like he's about to blow himself up.
I'm not defending the intelligence services, but don't blame the person with the gun; blame the people who declared JCDM to be a threat that needed to be stopped.
[ Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm ]
I disagree. The GP makes a valid point about how the police need to be policed more rigorously than other citizens. When a 'normal' citizen steps out of line, that's one thing. When someone with the power of arrest and considerable other powers steps out of line, that's a very serious matter. Nothing undermines society more than corrupt officials who should be enforcing the rules.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
The person with the gun is the one that pulled the trigger.
Sure his superiors fucked up, and royally so.
But he was the one to make the call, and by the looks of it anybody with a coat on on a warm day is now subject to possible shootings by overzealous police officers.
I repeat, there was *0* and I really mean absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the person they were following was a terrorist. Whoever gets to follow the orders carries part of the blame, you can not be absolved for killing an innocent person by claiming to simply be doing your job, that sort of excuse went out the window a long long time ago, and for a very good reason.
The hand that pulls the trigger is connected to an arm that is connected to a brain, that is supposed to think for itself, not to blindly follow orders, especially not if they're coming from a group of people that have been known to err before.
The whole system of justice is based on evidence, that's not a thing to throw overboard lightly.
The person that was shot had not committed any crime, was not about to commit any crime, was not charged with any crime (regardless of whether they committed one), had no history of committing crimes that would require that person to be stopped with such force.
ESPECIALLY NOT TO BE SHOT IN THE HEAD FROM POINT BLANK RANGE.
MP3 Search Engine
"The real dangerous stuff" is "...knives, chisels and bolt cutters..."
I have all of those in my home, too. Along with even more dangerous stuff like shovels, hedge clippers, wire cutters, electronics tools, chemicals, an axe, a lawnmower and a couple of rakes.
I also have a good deal of satirical materials, including a card game about Nuclear War.
And I've even been involved in "climate protests" - there are even pictures of me online before the Iraq invasion carrying a mass-made sign proclaiming "Go solar, not ballistic".
Yet, it's never even occurred to me to try to "break into and probably sabotage a power plant". Not even when I lived near one.
Perhaps I'm safe because I don't own a balaclava?
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
"...authoritarian 'because I said so and I have a gun" mentality.'"
...and you wonder why some of us fight to keep the right to bear arms in this country. This is precisely what happens when you allow only police and military to carry weapons...the loss of freedom to the people.
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
I've got some bad news for you then. If a firearms officer is told that 'X' is a terrorist, he is not expected to conduct his own investigation as to whether 'X' really is a terrorist or not. He has to accept the information that he is given - the responsibility for this lies with his superiors. The firearms officer is not the one responsible in this case. He was acting on information that he had been given which had been approved by his superiors. If he believes that 'X' posed a threat his correct response was to open fire - at whatever range he can reasonably expect to achieve a 'kill' - and remove the threat without unduly risking the life of others. Police do NOT aim to wound. A head shot is acceptable when it can be done without risk to others, otherwise multiple shots to the body are usually deemed as acceptable.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
You do realize this happened in the UK, right?
No federal government there. And no concept of by or for the people either.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I don't disagree with this, they should be policed more rigorously than the general public, and they usually are. If a cop comes under investigation for a crime, it is a lot more likely to make it to Court than if it is a private citizen, at least in Canada anyways.
Wow, that is certainly not the case in the US. In my state we actually have special exemptions in our handgun laws for police officers because normal people convicted of domestic violence are not allowed to carry concealed pistols... but so many police officers have such a conviction, they made sure to exempt them. My brother used to be a cop. When pulled over for excessive speeding, the police saw he was a cop, chatted a bit, and let him go with no mention of the speeding, not even a warning. I suppose a lot of that falls under the category of police not being investigated when they are likely suspects in crimes, but in general the police are not policed well in the US.
Well, this is going to be based on what I can glean from the news, so it's biased at best, but just about all the cases involving the military that I can remember were pretty hard on the lower echelons but the people higher up almost always escaped real punishment.
MP3 Search Engine
Specific instances of police abuse of authority does not prove that "all police are evil and should be punished." If anything police are proven to be human. The cops involved in that incident should have been fired and/or charged, and I don't disagree with that. However, saying all police are bad from a specific instance is like saying all black people are bad because a black person robbed you one time. Yes, I'm equating hating the police to racism because they're both discrimination against a group for acts by individuals.
I don't disagree with this, they should be policed more rigorously than the general public, and they usually are. If a cop comes under investigation for a crime, it is a lot more likely to make it to Court than if it is a private citizen, at least in Canada anyways. The best solution to this problem is to allocate more money to police budget so that you have more people wanting to become police officers (since now you'll have an actual benefit to the amount of work they have to do) and can be pickier with who you choose.
Are you kidding me? You want to pay them MORE?? Are you insane?
Here is what happens.
1. Cops do something terrible. (Tazer a man to death, shoot an unarmed man at point blank range, raid the wrong house and shoot grandma, dump a quadriplegic out of his wheelchair, etc.)
2. The police department starts an official investigation.
3. The officers are suspended with pay. This is in effect a paid vacation.
4. After several months the department concludes that no wrong doing took place.
5. Police officers involved in the incident return to work, and sometimes are even promoted.
I can cite case after case after case of this happening.. search google for "police cleared of wrong doing" .. it will make you sick.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
I was born here. I have every right to be here without consenting to any agreement whatsoever.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Oh, no, there's a slight difference:
Cops mostly have a similar mindset and agenda. The majority of people have had negative personal experiences with the police. The police force works as a unit to accomplish its goals and protect its members.
Black people are generally very diverse and may have a variety of motivations and agendas. The average racist has not had any negative personal experiences with black people and hates them based on assumption and hearsay. Lastly, there is no evidence of a vast racial conspiracy. The black community is notorious for its fragmented nature and black people rarely strive to do anything as a group.
Even the least corrupt cop is evil because they have to enforce evil laws. Every cop on the beat is participating in the persecution of marijuana smokers, for instance. There's absolutely no justification for that. Any person who would use violent force against the non-violent, deserves all the contempt and scorn in the world.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
What if the person is just a businessman who committed fraud and stile 3.5 million dollars from 100,000 people? Would it be okay to arrest him? If you define arrest as "violent force" then using violent force against the non-violent is a necessity, not a sin. As to marijuana smoking, I'm a libertarian, as well as someone who enjoys cannabis. I believe it should be made legal. However, I don't blame the cops who enforce the law. Their job is to enforce the law no matter their personal bias and I respect them for that. I blame the gov't.
Yes, in the US i suppose you would expect to risk your life. At least if I should believe guys like you on ./, what I read in the newspapers and what we see in American movies and television shows.
I still hope it is a bit exaggerated, and not really representative for the majority of cases.
If not I feel truly sorry for your people.
In most of Europe (in fact most of the world) the police would chase after you but will not open fire unless you start shooting back at them. If they have reason to believe you are dangerous they will still warn you, usually several times before opening fire.
And at least in my country I know for a fact they have instructions to shoot to disable and not to kill.
After all we are not barbarians and have done away with the death penalty a long long time ago.
BTW: The man in question here was unarmed and had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks or any other criminal activities.
It has also been established that he never ran from the police as they initially claimed. The police later issued an official apology after this fact leaked to the press.
He did however resemble slightly the man they were looking for. So does a lot of people in London.
The fact of the case is that the police officers in question were jumping the gun in this case. Perhaps understandable after the bombings but that is a poor excuse.
If we surrender our rights, freedom and justice system because of the threat of terrorist then the terrorist have won and we may be safe but not free.
One should also remember that the terrorist threat might be spectacular and frightening but in reality it is relatively trivial.
Many many more people die every year in traffic accidents than are being killed by terrorist.
In fact there is a much higher probability that either of us will commit suicide than become victims of a terrorist attack.
It is a sorry state of affairs but people seems to have lost all perspective about this.
There's an interesting documentary on the subject called V For Vendetta.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
*sigh*. Find a country that has more stringent gun control - but a higher gun-related crime-rate than USA, then maybe you'll have some credibility. Hell, I'd settle for a comparison between "crimes-thwarted-by-armed-joe-sixpacks" versus "crimes-committed-with-legally-purchased-guns" which favours the former situation (and no, don't tell me that the knowledge of armed victims scares would-be criminals into lawfulness, if it did you'd have less crime). Besides, any "law abiding citizen" can purchase a gun, and then become a "criminal" once they have it - it's not like would-be criminals are born with the word "DANGER" tattooed into their foreheads.
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
Everyone consents to be governed by staying in the country.
That only works if: A)There is somewhere else to go where a man can be free. B)The rules you originally consent to remain unchanged. Option A is kinda viable in rural Alaska and the Australian outback, but the careful databasing of all citizens is rapidly destroying that freedom of remoteness. You could practice civil disobedience an refuse to pay taxes to fund a standing army, but even living in the remote wilderness the IRS would track you down and make you submit. Option B doesn't hold true when when things regarded as inalienable rights, become the objects of steady erosion and obscurification. When the way the agreement document (The Constitution) reads and the way it is enacted are so very different, you may have consented to being governed, but you are not getting the government you consented to.
We are all just people.