In UK: State can raid your home 266 different ways. England Prevails.

[Blind_Io]

http://forums.finalgear.com/newthrea...newthread&f=33

State can raid homes in 266 ways
By Marie Woolf
Published: 22 April 2007

An Englishman's home is no longer his castle, a study shows.

There are no fewer than 266 powers under which state officials can enter an individual's home, according to the centre-right thinktank, the Centre for Policy Studies.

These range from the right of Revenue and Customs officers to enter homes with a writ to seize suspected smuggled goods to the power of entry available to Environment Department officials under the Bees Act 1980.

The pamphlet entitled "Crossing the Threshold: 266 Ways the State Can Enter Your Home", says the bulk of the powers have been created by Parliament over the past two decades.

Its author, Harry Snook, said that, as concerns grow over the drift towards a "surveillance society", his new research demonstrated that the state today enjoys widespread access to what was previously considered to be the private domain.

"Where our home life is concerned, the duties of the state are less and so, concomitantly, should be its powers," wrote Mr Snook, a barrister.

"In a democracy, almost nobody suggests that we should be overseen in our living room to the same degree that we are outside."

Mr Snook's report recommends a new Act of Parliament to harmonise the procedural provisions of the dozens of existing entry powers and to protect the citizen by making accountability and transparency paramount in their use.

[Peter3hg]

Wow, it's obvious there would be a lot of ways but thats still a surprising number.

[Cobol74]

What is really annoying is that the authorities have all this power but seem to have completely failed to use them to stop ever increasing crime rates.

[Firecat]

concerns grow over the drift towards a "surveillance society"

I'm sorry...a "drift?"

[Blind_Io]

Originally Posted by Cobol74

What is really annoying is that the authorities have all this power but seem to have completely failed to use them to stop ever increasing crime rates.

So they have all these ways to invade your privacy if they want to and yet you lot still have incredibly high crime.

Hmmm, the old system in the US of "Shoot the fuckers if they try anything" looks better and better. For one thing if an officer comes to your door and asks if he can come in you can say "No" unless he has a warrant issued by a judge. Saying "no" is not reasonable cause for suspicion either.

[vRS]

We wouldnt have this if they were more Police on the streets stopping our huge amounts of crime.....

[Peter3hg]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

So they have all these ways to invade your privacy if they want to and yet you lot still have incredibly high crime.

Hmmm, the old system in the US of "Shoot the fuckers if they try anything" looks better and better. For one thing if an officer comes to your door and asks if he can come in you can say "No" unless he has a warrant issued by a judge. Saying "no" is not reasonable cause for suspicion either.

Warrant system is the same here although they aren't difficult to obtain from Magistrates.

[Blind_Io]

Originally Posted by vRS

We wouldnt have this if they were more Police on the streets stopping our huge amounts of crime.....

1 - who will pay for it?

2 - between that many cops and the cameras you will be living in a police-state. Have fun with that.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

So they have all these ways to invade your privacy if they want to and yet you lot still have incredibly high crime.

Hmmm, the old system in the US of "Shoot the fuckers if they try anything" looks better and better.

Agreed. It can be argued that if more civilians and police carried weapons in the UK the crime rate wouldn't be so high in the first place...

So England has taken away the rights of it's people to defend themselves, broadly increased surveillance, and given cops the ability to enter a civilians home under a vast number of pretenses? "England Prevails" indeed .

[epp_b]

Obligatory: Yeah, well, I bet there are even more ways in America!


































I'M KIDDING!!!

C'mon, this is FinalGear

[Blind_Io]

Originally Posted by epp_b

Obligatory: Yeah, well, I bet there are even more ways in America!

I don't think so.

[vRS]

Originally Posted by tigger

Agreed. It can be argued that if more civilians and police carried weapons in the UK the crime rate wouldn't be so high in the first place...

So England has taken away the rights of it's people to defend themselves, broadly increased surveillance, and given cops the ability to enter a civilians home under a vast number of pretenses? "England Prevails" indeed .

Last time we were legally allowed guns some nutter walked into a Primary school and shot dead 16 people and himself, we have even had deaths with air guns so I doubt that guns are the answer.

[zenkidori]

clearly getting rid of them didn't help any.

[Blind_Io]

Look, there will always be nutters.

Anti-gun advocates always hold up the exceptions to the rule. They love to point out the nutters and crazies who stalk around with AK-47s and say "See what happens when you have guns?!" No, it's "See what happens when you have nutters."

Take this for example:

Cologne school massacre. Armed with a insecticide sprayer converted into a flamethrower, a pike and a homebuilt mace, 42-year-old Walter Seifert entered the Katholische Volksschule and opened fire on the girls playing in the courtyard. He then knocked in classroom windows with his mace and fired inside. Teacher Ursula Kuhr, who tried to prevent him from entering her classroom, was stabbed to death with the pike. Eight children and two teachers died, twenty children and two teachers survived with very severe burns.

- Wikipedia

Yes, there will be times when the crazies get their hands on guns. Yes, there will be those who slip through the cracks - it's an imperfect world. The question is this: would you rather have someone risk being one of the few who are killed by a crazy with a gun in a school rampage or would you rather be afraid to go out at night because there is a perfectly sane person with a knife ready turn you into a pin cushion so he can take your mobile phone and watch? Would you rather live in relative privacy in a society that permits arms or live in a surveillance police-state like London?

I would much rather take the chance of being one of the few who get killed by gunfire than risk being one of the many who get assaulted by muggers. Incidentally, I would be interested to know exactly how many people a year get mugged, assaulted, killed, wounded, disfigured, or simply threatened with a non-firearm weapon in England. I bet the number is not flattering. If it was all peaches and sunshine then why would THIS be in the news?

[tigger]

Originally Posted by vRS

Last time we were legally allowed guns some nutter walked into a Primary school and shot dead 16 people and himself, we have even had deaths with air guns so I doubt that guns are the answer.

...

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

"See what happens when you have guns?!" No, it's "See what happens when you have nutters."

Exaclty. The problem is not gun ownership, the problem is identifying the 'nutters'. People who are going to do something illegal anyway aren't too worried about getting dinged for illegally having a gun. Especially when they know that very few others have them. In some places, cops won't even have them. Another thing, there are loads of ways to kill someone other than using a gun, hell i'd rather get shot than burned with a homemade flamethrower and stabbed with a pike. But if I was carrying, I wouldn't have to worry about that, would I?

Guns are the reality. The gov't can try all it likes but people will still have them. People will still do terrible things. Accept it, and go from there.

[nomix]

How many ways you can get permission to enter a private citizen's home, but if there's any meat on the bone regarding the actual reasons for entering your home.

But in this time of hysteria, I do find it disturbing.