I've gone back to it, because today, as it seems to be every other day, there's an aricle about someone who did the same and 2-300 drunks turned up and trashed the place (googling gives you well on the way to a million, but, of course, many will be repeats).
Okay. Is trashing a place illegal? Only, one would assume, if it was against the wishes of the owner, in which case, he should probably call the authorities to have them ousted. For that matter, if people showed up that he didn't want there and they refused to leave, he should call the authorities to eject them for trespassing.
So maybe the police were a little heavy handed, but what's wrong with them being pro-active? There was a very great risk that otherwise they would be turning up to a much nastier situation, calling for more resource.
A much nastier situation? Based on what? Let's assume for a second that it was going to be a full-on rave. (I understand that an unlicensed party is illegal in the UK, and, by the letter of the law, that's enough reason to disperse it, but we're talking about whether or not the law is oppressive.) My understanding is that you could have the exact same party and it would be fine as long as it was licensed. But let's ignore even that. What if, instead of a birthday party, it was a political rally that the police or government found offensive? It would be pretty easy to claim that they were organizing an illegal rave, wouldn't it? After all, apparently all the evidence they need is a sound system and a dozen people.
The inference of the article was that the police were deliberately trawling Facebook, I find that a little unlikely, but if they were then that to me comes under imaginative crime prevention, not oppressive police state.
I couldn't care less where they came across their evidence. If they were trawling Facebook and came across an advertisement for pipe bombs, that's fine. I don't think anyone else is concerned about where the police obtained their evidence, either.
I don't even really care that much that they showed up to check out what was going on.
What does bother me is that the party-goers were threatened with arrest solely for being in a situation where they
might have had the
intent of doing something illegal. That's pretty close to the thought police. (As well as
1984, we're back to
Minority Report here, though I'm certainly willing to think of the (far superior) short story.)
I think it more likely that "they were informed by a concerned member of the public".
You planning on going to the empeg meet this year? I guess you'd better hope that a concerned citizen doesn't notice the announcement here on the BBS and have Rob's back yard closed down. I'm sure there are UK-specific references that I'm not familiar with, but this is how the
McCarthy era, with it's anti-Communist
House Un-American Activites Committee witch-hunts, worked.
There are those in this thread that would take the opposite view, I think!
Ya think?
The thing that bothers me the most is that you have the (ostensibly) liberal power in charge now. The Tories certainly aren't going to be any better; they passed the anti-rave law to begin with. Who is looking out for your civil liberties, especially since you seem to be unconcerned with them?
Previous Topic
Index
