Re: trespass criminalised

In message <[email hidden]>, Dave Fawthrop
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:58:33 +0000, Chris Street
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:29:26 +0000, Alan G wrote:
|
| crosspost to uk.rec.walking added

| >Trespass law puts royal land out of bounds

We know beyond reasonable doubt that there have been four *British*
terrorist suicide bombers.
The Shoe bomber Richard Reid,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1731568.stm
Saajid Badat another British shoe bomber who did not complete his mission
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1054-1510081,00.html
Asil Hanif who killed three in Tel Aviv bar Mike's Place
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3683751.stm
Omar Sharif fled when his bomb failed to go off. His body was found
floating in the sea 12 days later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3749821.stm
There are without doubt others at large, who will have the whole arsenal of
terrorist weapons at their disposal.

As the royal family are prime targets for any terrorist, it is correct to
take any reasonable precautions to protect them.

But when draconian and ill though-out legislation affects the liberty of
everyone, it's time for us to stand up and be counted.
--
Chris Morriss

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:30:53 +0000, Chris Morriss
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| In message <[email hidden]>, Dave Fawthrop
| <[email hidden]> writes
| >On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:58:33 +0000, Chris Street
| ><[email hidden]> wrote:
| >
| >| On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:29:26 +0000, Alan G wrote:
| >|
| >| crosspost to uk.rec.walking added
| >
| >| >Trespass law puts royal land out of bounds
| >
| >We know beyond reasonable doubt that there have been four *British*
| >terrorist suicide bombers.
| >The Shoe bomber Richard Reid,
| >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1731568.stm
| >Saajid Badat another British shoe bomber who did not complete his mission
| >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1054-1510081,00.html
| >Asil Hanif who killed three in Tel Aviv bar Mike's Place
| >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3683751.stm
| >Omar Sharif fled when his bomb failed to go off. His body was found
| >floating in the sea 12 days later.
| >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3749821.stm
| >There are without doubt others at large, who will have the whole arsenal of
| >terrorist weapons at their disposal.
| >
| >As the royal family are prime targets for any terrorist, it is correct to
| >take any reasonable precautions to protect them.
| >
| >
|
| But when draconian and ill though-out legislation affects the liberty of
| everyone, it's time for us to stand up and

| be counted.

Should be spelt "support terrorists"

--
Dave F

Dave Fawthrop said:

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:58:33 +0000, Chris Street
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:29:26 +0000, Alan G wrote:
|
| crosspost to uk.rec.walking added

| >Trespass law puts royal land out of bounds

We know beyond reasonable doubt that there have been four *British*
terrorist suicide bombers.
The Shoe bomber Richard Reid,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1731568.stm
Saajid Badat another British shoe bomber who did not complete his mission
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1054-1510081,00.html
Asil Hanif who killed three in Tel Aviv bar Mike's Place
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3683751.stm
Omar Sharif fled when his bomb failed to go off. His body was found
floating in the sea 12 days later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3749821.stm
There are without doubt others at large, who will have the whole arsenal of
terrorist weapons at their disposal.

As the royal family are prime targets for any terrorist, it is correct to
take any reasonable precautions to protect them.

So intern them behind high walls with armed guards.

Dave Fawthrop said:

the royal family

uk.royal.wa*kers!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

Dave Fawthrop said:

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:58:33 +0000, Chris Street
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:29:26 +0000, Alan G wrote:
|
| crosspost to uk.rec.walking added

| >Trespass law puts royal land out of bounds

We know beyond reasonable doubt that there have been four *British*
terrorist suicide bombers.
The Shoe bomber Richard Reid,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1731568.stm
Saajid Badat another British shoe bomber who did not complete his mission
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1054-1510081,00.html
Asil Hanif who killed three in Tel Aviv bar Mike's Place
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3683751.stm
Omar Sharif fled when his bomb failed to go off. His body was found
floating in the sea 12 days later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3749821.stm
There are without doubt others at large, who will have the whole arsenal of
terrorist weapons at their disposal.

As the royal family are prime targets for any terrorist, it is correct to
take any reasonable precautions to protect them.

Which this would not be.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Will the information superhighway have any rest stops?

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Quoted message said:

As the royal family are prime targets for any terrorist, it is correct to
take any reasonable precautions to protect them.

--
Dave F

So why wasn't this thought out when the "right to roam" was in process of
being drawn up? We have Ox-Bridge educated senior ministers and civil
servents and they hadn't even thought out this? Give over, the Royals have
always been a target - Lord Mountbatten for one.

It's a Tony Blair ploy, Dave, give with one hand (take the credit) and take
back it with the other hand.

Jhimmy.

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Dave Fawthrop <[email hidden]> said
<snip>

Quoted message said:

As the royal family are prime targets for any terrorist, it is correct to
take any reasonable precautions to protect them.

Fine, so lets nick people possessing terrorist weapons, people belonging
to terrorist organizations, people expressing terrorist views .. not
unarmed citizens accidentally ambling across the wrong piece of land.

Suicide bombers typically do it by car (more bang for less effort), or
else 'up close and personal' (c.f. Ghandi), they do not ramble across
royal estates armed with nothing more sinister than a Leki walking
pole.

However this is just the latest in a long slide into government over
control - it was after all the Tories who took handguns away from our
Olympic shooting medalists (among other peaceful users) on the grounds
that nobody could be bothered to sort out who could be trusted to have
one and who was a nutter. Since when, gun crime has disappeared ..
right? Oh, apparently not ..

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
SC recommends the use of Firefox; Get smart, or get assimilated.

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:03:57 GMT, "Jhimmy" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As the royal family are prime targets for any terrorist, it is correct to
take any reasonable precautions to protect them.

--
Dave F

So why wasn't this thought out when the "right to roam" was in process of
being drawn up?

Because this government have a very serious habit of NOT thinking
through legislation.

A significant amount of the huge volume of legislation they have
introduced has been amendments to laws they introduced that had
unintended consequences.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Will the information superhighway have any rest stops?

To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Today the "royals" Next the other celebs will need protection, and
then industrialists and then...

By then we will all be flashing our internal passports, cringing from
ASBOs and control orders, and happily marching along on Party approved
outdoor activities in the designated places...

They are using the bogeyman.. WAKE UP!!!

Start fighting back and sack the [censored] this May

Richard Webb

Quoted message said:

As the royal family are prime targets for any terrorist, it is correct to
take any reasonable precautions to protect them.

Make them pay or become ordinary citizens.,.. The Take must stop now.

And unreasonable precautions? How about protecting us from Authority.
I am not frightened by shoe bombers.. But HM Gov terrifies me....

Richard Webb

Quoted message said:

Because we didn't have Bliar in government that's why. At least we got shut
of Plunkett - shame Clarke is nearly as bad.

Doesent matter.. The Home office calls the shot.. They have had a wish
list for years.. Its Xmas for them now... They have the technology..
Its control time!

Richard Webb

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

However this is just the latest in a long slide into government over
control - it was after all the Tories who took handguns away from our
Olympic shooting medalists (among other peaceful users) on the grounds
that nobody could be bothered to sort out who could be trusted to have
one and who was a nutter. Since when, gun crime has disappeared ..
right? Oh, apparently not ..

No, that was one of the first acts of the Blair givernment. He made
great election capital out of it.

See, you can't even tell them apart any more...

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:30:42 GMT, [email hidden] (RJ Webb) wrote:

..
| I am not frightened by shoe bombers..

Maybe not but you should be frightened of a UK version of Madrid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3500452.stm

--
Dave F

In article <[email hidden]>, Dave Fawthrop
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:30:42 GMT, [email hidden] (RJ Webb) wrote:

.
| I am not frightened by shoe bombers..

Maybe not but you should be frightened of a UK version of Madrid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3500452.stm

No!

We should not be frightened of a UK version of the Madrid bombings - if
we are the terrorists have achieved their goal of terrorising us.

We kill more people than that every month on our roads but most people
are not frightened of road travel.

We should take reasonable measures to reduce the risks associated with
terrorism but not measures that will curtail the liberties of the public
they are intending to protect.

As for the Royals or politicians being high profile targets - I would
much rather they were targeted than the general public. Would it really
matter in the greater scheme of things if King Tony or Queen Liz were
taken out???

--

Dominic Sexton

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:55:56 +0000, Dominic Sexton
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| We should take reasonable measures to reduce the risks associated with
| terrorism

Like disrupting plans, financing, lines of communication, access to
vulnerable targets. etc.

| but not measures that will curtail the liberties of the public
| they are intending to protect.

You can do one or the other but not both. Pity but that's how things are.
:-(((((

--
Dave F

Dave Fawthrop said:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:55:56 +0000, Dominic Sexton
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| We should take reasonable measures to reduce the risks associated with
| terrorism

Like disrupting plans, financing, lines of communication, access to
vulnerable targets. etc.

| but not measures that will curtail the liberties of the public
| they are intending to protect.

You can do one or the other but not both. Pity but that's how things are.
:-(((((

If you have any evidence that someone is a terrorist then that
evidence should go before the courts. If you merely suspect them, and
lock them up indefinitely, then you have become a terrorist. The
greatest threat to us is from the control-freaks.
Fortunatly the recent bill was vastly improved by the Lords, though
it's still cr*p as it stands. And I think we can expect Tony to be
returned with a much reduced majority that should clip his wings.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

(RJ Webb) said:

Quoted message said:

As the royal family are prime targets for any terrorist, it is correct to
take any reasonable precautions to protect them.

Make them pay or become ordinary citizens.,.. The Take must stop now.

They should be put on a par with the rest of the showbiz crowd -
that's all they are.
Off with their ears!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

In article <[email hidden]>, Dave Fawthrop
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:55:56 +0000, Dominic Sexton
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| We should take reasonable measures to reduce the risks associated with
| terrorism

Like disrupting plans, financing, lines of communication, access to
vulnerable targets. etc.

| but not measures that will curtail the liberties of the public
| they are intending to protect.

You can do one or the other but not both.

It is not a black and white situation - there is a balance between
liberties of the general public to go about their lives and the
liberties of the terrorists or suspects to go about their terrorising.

Too often it seems that the politicians are frightened of not being seen
to do enough and that leads them to over-react. They don't have the
gumption to stand up for what is right :-(((((

--

Dominic Sexton

"Dave Fawthrop" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:30:42 GMT, [email hidden] (RJ Webb) wrote:

.
| I am not frightened by shoe bombers..

Maybe not but you should be frightened of a UK version of Madrid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3500452.stm

You pathetic wimp! During the blitz 3000 a day died in London alone, the
mere threat a few bombs has seen you give up all the liberties others fought
and died for, in exchange for the illusion of safety. You are nothing but a
spineless coward.