It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Royal Wedding's Pre-Crime Arrests

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

The Royal Wedding's Pre-Crime Arrests


www.consortiumnews.com

What would old FDR say about the dangers of fear? Is this how the "terrorists" win, by getting people so fearful and stupid that we terrorize ourselves? That's more or less what FDR worried about.

One hundred or so activists were arrested before last week’s British royal wedding on "PRE-crime" charges. Street-theatre actors and critics of the royal family were rounded up ahead of time because they said they wanted to use the occasion to demonstrate their disapproval of the monarchy. [See this interview with one of those arrested.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.guardian.co.uk




posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
"Pre Crime Arrests"????

WOW

Several things come to mind here..

1. How do you determine someone is going to commit a crime before they commit it?
2. What happened to a "Free Society"
and
3. Those that sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither...

I understand that with a function as large and magnificent as this, precautions are needed, but arresting people for "Pre Crimes"???

Apparently the subjects were only held and not arrested, but I am not sure that makes a lot of difference...

www.consortiumnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Absolutely ridiculous, and also stupid.

Don't they realize the backlash from such an unjustified action will likely be far worse and longer lasting than any prevented protests in relation to the wedding.

Sounds like a bit of paranoia and abuse of power to me...



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 



Hi Semper, thanks for posting this!

I read it earlier today....I really wonder about how they (authorities) "pre" deteremined the danger...

Then again, maybe its predictable...social media? Or texting, email?

Or...?


Although described as a political anarchist, Veitch said he was not a "destructive or violent" person and believes that his arrest was sanctioned from high up in the Met.

"I spent 16 hours in Parkside police station [in Cambridge] in a box-like cell. Then at 10am the next day, the Met police came to Cambridge and took me to Edmonton police station.

"They never made anyone aware of where I was. To my family, it was like I had been disappeared for the entire duration of the royal wedding."

Veitch described the grounds for arrest as "Orwellian" and compared it to the film Minority Report, where people were arrested before they committed a crime. www.guardian.co.uk...






edit on 2-5-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


It just seems to me that when we start rounding up potential criminals, before they have acted, we are venturing into territory a free people should not enter..

Seems like something you read about that happened in Nazi Germany..

Semper



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Oh yes, I agree. Its way out there...

I would be willing to wager a bet....if we knew how / by what method they "pre determined" this
"pre - crime" many would revolt...

And before they had the chance to take to the streets...they would be stopped in their tracks.

Its come to this...1984 is finally here.

ETA : was this software used? Most likely yes....

Developed by Richard Berk, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, the software is already used in Baltimore and Philadelphia to predict....

"This research replaces those seat-of-the-pants calculations," he said. .....

New advances in computer technology, however, can sift through that haystack more quickly and more accurately than ever. ,,,,

A computer program is helping law enforcement determine who is most likely to commit crime.Beginning several years ago, the researchers assembled a dataset of more than 60,000 various crimes, including homicides. Using an algorithm they developed, they found a subset of people much more likely to commit homicide when paroled or probated.
abcnews.go.com...


Thinking about it...sift....they are sifting.



abcnews.go.com...
edit on 2-5-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Sadly, it's a means to an end... a wholly unjustifiable end.

Unfortunately, this is a prime example of a social elite group wielding their influence to stifle those who disagree with them so they can have what basically amounts to a tax-payer sponsored party. The irony is astounding.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


First I have to say it really is good to be King!

I am a little conflicted about this though as usually I am against the Monarchy and the Police State but in all fairness I think it's wrong to target occassions like Weddings and Funerals for demonstrations as they are private ceremonies for the most part meant to be either joyous or solemn for those personally vested.

Now when it comes to pre-arrest this is something that the Secret Service does all the time in the United States when the President vistis different cities and towns where people known to have made threatening statements against him or belong to organizations that have made threatening statements against him live. They usually do pick them up for the length of the President's visit, and then release them once he's gone.

So it really is nothing new.

Just new for a wedding.

Bottom line, it's still good to be King!




edit on 2/5/11 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Does this remind you of the Westboro Baptist Church events of recent weeks? Police detained some for questioning until the funeral was over. The UK police apparently used the same tactic and increased public safety as protesters may have been in for a thrashing at the hands of the crowd. This saved the national health system and the courts time and money by greatly reducing the chances of violent confrontation. Now, the critics will have to march around in front of whatever palace they choose and write letters to the editors. Life is getting tough for protestors when the big wedding is off limits for axe grinders.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Its quite simple, you have three pre-cogs attached to machinery and record their visions. The two matching fvisions are recorded and the lone unmatcing vision (the minority report) is destroyed. Then you send the police to arrest the criminals the two precogs saw committing a crime before they can act out the crime. Then you rely on John Anderton to prove the discarded minority report could be just as viable a future as the other two.

edit on 2-5-2011 by SlyingFaucers because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 

Love his work!
www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Hardly "pre-crime". If you dig deeper on the people held, many were suspects in the anti-cuts and Student fee's demo's which saw shops, business's and offices targetted by anarchists and vandals.

If these people honestly felt they were wrongfully arrested, then they are within their rights to complain to the IPCC and sue the force concerned.

Quite telling that none of them have done so.

Also, generally speaking, if the Police have evidence of disorder or crime being planned before hand, they are well within their rights to act. or would people prefer they sit on their hands until after the crime has been committed for fear of offending people or being accused of being "Orwellian"?



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
Unfortunately, this is a prime example of a social elite group wielding their influence to stifle those who disagree with them so they can have what basically amounts to a tax-payer sponsored party. The irony is astounding.


Taxpayer sponsored? How so?

They paid for the wedding themselves.

(queue the inevitable but woefully misinformed diatribe about how the Royals "sponge off the state")



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Taxpayer sponsored? How so?

They paid for the wedding themselves.

(queue the inevitable but woefully misinformed diatribe about how the Royals "sponge off the state")


It is my understanding that the taxpayers support the royal family to the tune of nearly $60 million each year. Even if the public only paid for the security surrounding the wedding, it is still footing a portion of the overall bill.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 



Then you misunderstand.. Allow me to explain..

The Queen is the only one to receive any money from the Taxpayer, which covers the running of the Royal Household and expenses incurred for carrying out State functions. She receives this money from the Civil List, which the Royals had set up in exchange for handing over the entire of the Crown Estate to the Government back in the 18th/19th century.

The Crown estate generates around £350 million a year in revenue for the Treasury, so in effect the Royals don't actually cost the taxpayer any money as the income from the Corwn Estate far out weighs the cost of the Civil List.

All that aside, from 2013 the Civil List is being abolished and the Monarch will get a percentage income from the Crown Estate (still owned by the Government though) capped at around £30 million (subject to inflationary changes) so they won't be getting any money from "the taxpayer".

All the other Royals (such as Prince Charles, Prince Edward etc) have private incomes derived from business interests of their own. They receive no money from the State.

EDIT: This isn't bringing into the equation the money generated by tourism on the back of the Royals, worth something like £1.5 Billion to the UK annually.

Also, don't forget, many of the palaces and castles are state owned and the Queen is just a tenant, such as Buckingham palace.

edit on 3/5/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Supporters of pre-crime arrests such as this should be thrown in jail.

There ought to be a law against such things.

You have a right to free speech, but you have no right to slander or libel or perjury and one should not have the right to use their speech to call for the limitations and removal of others' freedoms.

edit on 3-5-2011 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



Secret Service does all the time in the United States when the President vistis different cities and towns where people known to have made threatening statements against him or belong to organizations that have made threatening statements against him live.


That is not "Pre Crime" at all...

It is a Crime to threaten the US President...

Semper



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 
There is more in this thread as well.

Plain Clothes Police Thugs Infiltrate Peaceful Ant-Royal Wedding Protest To Crush Freedom Of Speech
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Video on my thread of one of the arrests.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Don't you remember your favorite excuse "Probable cause".
This is the reason people feel a police state coming.




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join