Do Planning Departments Act on Anonymous Info

Sent via SMTP - but anonymous remailers will hide the IP number as well - as aioe.org is hiding yours.

Nah! It's the 'whip' system and the 'carrot' of a nice ministerial job with all the perks that make most MPs follow like a load of sheep.

When I e-mail my MP, I always give my name and address - and to be honest, since I found out that my e-mails were ending up at his constituency office, about a mile from where I live, I simply pop in there now and have a bitch in person.

As for "anything of vale", it contained a copy of the act as supplied by the Home Secretary.

A little cynical - but that's exactly my feelings (except that I don't want any more of my earnings or rights eroded by them).

There is adult in this country who can honestly say "they have nothing to hide" - although the "Gitmo" trip would be a little drastic for "forgetting" a password - although anything is possible since the so "one-way extradition treaty" between us and the US.

Tanner-'op

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote

Thank you for volunteering

No thanks. I prefer non-fiction.

And when CCTV and other token "security" proves not to work, what do they do? Not abandon it and do something sensible but to heap more and more of their failed "security" measures on us.

Absolutely true.

Of course, criminals would never think to hide their knives. ;-)

Perhaps I failed to make myself clear. If you want to see crypto-fascist anti-semite anencephalics ranting on about locking them up, chucking them out the innocent have nothing to fear, one merely needs to look in the arsewipe Daily Mail.

Assuming you can overcome the ensuing nausea.

In message , Grimly Curmudgeon writes

Fact is, flippant or not, it's right, although chances are he'd never even have been deported if he was stopped.

I have no idea, people run from the police for the most stupid of reasons.

Agreed, I think I may have mentioned in one of my earlier posts that it was an extreme act brought on by extreme times. I still don't think the police were wrong to shoot, what I think of the complete balls up made of the situation afterwards is a completely different matter.

Are you suggesting that the police should warn potential suicide bombers that they are armed police?

You might find a high percentage would decide to run away and go bang immediately on realising that there were three armed coppers following them.

It's a difficult decision to have to make (one that I'd never want to make) and that time it went badly wrong. You never hear of the tens of thousands of times it goes right because (rightly) they aren't newsworthy.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Clint Sharp saying something like:

Don't be an arse.

In message , Grimly Curmudgeon writes

You say he wasn't adequately warned that the men following him were armed police but you call me an arse for suggesting that you think the police on the spot should have identified themselves to a person they saw as a potential suicide bomber?

Plonk.

IMHO it was an extreme act brought on by extreme panic and paranoia. If we have a shoot to kill policy then we better be sure that the security services are infallible, otherwise such a policy is unreasonable.

You've got to consider the probability is the subject /is/ actually a terrorist versus the impact of killing an innocent man.

How many real suicide bombers have been shot dead by UK police, thereby preventing a bombing? Zero, IIRC.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Clint Sharp saying something like:

You tosser.