And that very sus law went up in smoke with the 1981 Brixton riots.
The suss law was the main cause of those riots. Many minorities were being singled out by the police who were using this law, Vagrancy Act 1824, as a "weapon" to quell public disquiet at the policies of the Thatcher Govt. It wasn't a new law but a "re-use" of archaic law re-purposed to counter perceived revolutionary rumblings from the "rotten boroughs" full of those nasty darkies.
I was there, I am scarred, I still feel unease when I see someone dressed like Thatcher.... EEEEEK!..... Collins
Not for the first time have I been perplexed and bewildered by “New and Improved ” laws.
here is a bit about the Sus Law back in the UK back in the day.
The power to act on “sus” was found in part of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which provided that:
every suspected person or reputed thief, frequenting any river, canal, or navigable stream, dock, or basin, or any quay, wharf, or warehouse near or adjoining thereto, or any street, highway, or avenue leading thereto, or any place of public resort, or any avenue leading thereto, or any street, or any highway or any place adjacent to a street or highway; with intent to commit an arrestable offence
—section 4, Vagrancy Act 1824
“shall be deemed a rogue and vagabond” and would be guilty of an offence, and be liable to be imprisoned for up to three months. This effectively permitted the police to stop and search, and even arrest, anyone found in a public place on the grounds that they suspected that they might intend to commit an offence.
In order to bring a prosecution under the Act, the police had to prove that the defendant had committed two acts:
the first, that established them as a “suspected person” (by acting suspiciously), and
the second, that provided intent to commit an arrestable offence.
Suspicion and Intent, neither of which are objective, they are purely subjective and fall prone to abuse by the powers that be.
I suspect that this is the thinking behind the change… “Why do they make it so hard for us to fuck over the obvious scumbags”
Yeah well, like it or not, even “scumbags” have rights.
Little note as for today…
Ruben "The Hurricane" Carter died today (ish) champion of the world and champion of justice.
He spent about the same amount of time in jail as Teina Pora and for the same reason….
Good egg Sir ;-)
How could I forget the others?
ACT, Prebble just calls out “Anybody there?” and its first up best dressed…
Untied Furniture is easy…. “Can you do hair?”
As for The Conservatines ” Hi, I’m Colin and this…. is my friend Craig”
No wonder I have problems with people with two first names…
Hard to know what decision processes are used for List appointments.
Varies from party to party but in the case of National I wouldn't be surprised if money was involved, geez, even their leader you can rent by the meal and as for Collins, probably the hour. Labour would tend to be a more meritocratic structure after the debacle of being rogered back in the eighties. Winston First? supplication may be the measure of the listing point.
As for the Greens, well, who's got the smoke Bro?. Nah... Kidding right.
The Greens are most likely choosing on an experience curve with a side order of supernatural powers.
I used to have one of those for sewing leather or some times sails.
'Twas made by a company called "Thrillavit'.
I lost it though but...
Oh how I yearn for the Thrillavit awl.
Under MMP, an electorate MP is no more deserving than a list one. The sooner silly FPP thinking like that dies out, the better.
perception is everything in politics, as Collins is about to discover, and perception is personal, it can and often does, defy both truth and logic.
An Electorate MP is perceived by most, I suspect, as someone voted for personally whereas the list MP seems chosen by "others".
In reality, of course, the position as actually the opposite but that is getting into deep and dark discussions of demographic democracy such as Majoritarian Electoral Democracy Vs. Economic Elite Domination and its Easter so don't egg me on....
the Greens will do what it takes,
As did the Maori Party.
Labour NEED the Greens? Not quite.
Labour would appreciate the Greens support, the Greens would have less power under National than Labour, the greens NEED Labour.
If the expected backlash against National is sizable then Labour could govern alone, I would like to think. However. If Labour needs support on confidence and supply I am sure a deal could and would be done but it would be churlish to suggest that Greens would be able to hold Labour to ransome without jeopardising their integrity. You only have to look to Nationals attitude to climate change to appreciate that.
There are some clever people in the Greens compared with current Labour leftovers, and they should be in more senior positions .. which they won’t get with Labour but might get with National.
Don't even consider thinking about postulating the possibility that anything closely resembling that eventuality could ever be within the realms of a probable scenario that could be imagined in the most rabid of Green minds.
The "She'll be awl right Mate" attitude of the blind sycophantic supplicants of the marauding market forces prevalent within the Multi-National Party are as sickening to the Greens as the thought of a pork sandwich would be to a Rabbi.
I would go as far as to suggest that the most likely partner that the Multi-National Party could find would be the Devil himself.
The silver haired Collins is full on creaming it I reckon,
In her dark blue top she is the standard we have come to expect from those lightweight pale blues who wish to skim Dotcom and his (m)ilk.
You are spoiled Collins,
Curd anyone believe yougot a whey with it so far?
Your long life must be flashing pasteurise .