Is the UK becoming a dictatorship?

Question

I am getting fed up with the state of this country. CCTV everywhere, speed cameras on our roads and smoking bans. Now it's becoming law that speaking on your mobile, hands free or not will be illegal. My hubby drives a lorry and says that it will be law for no drinking, eating or smoking in his cab. What is going on? It's political correctness gone berserk.

Tattoo Ted, I know these laws are made for safety, it just seems at times, the laws are excessive. But safety is paramount in all cases. You just feel on occasion that the Government really picks on you.

Mr Sceptic, I thank you for the points you made and largely agree with them. But your reference to my husband- he is an excellent driver and is more than qualified to do is job. These vehicles are lethal weapons as are cars and motorbikes, but these all become more so if driven by someone who doesn't know what they're doing. It appears we have laws for just about everything.

Answer 1

It is the policy of all socialist states to argue that the restraints they impose are neccessary because of; safety, equality, or saving the planet etc.

They recently refused to publish the report on the affect on speed cameras on road safety, researched and financed by you and me the tax payer, because it would not only show that they had made no difference, but in many cases the rate of accidents had risen.

Political Correctness is another weapon frequently used as an excuse to issue more restraints upon our freedoms.

The Police State is already here, and the Government has even leapt onto the bandwaggon of the phoney Global Warming scam.

85% of all Mp's, including the other politcal parties, are lawyers, so no matter who you vote for you end up with a government full of lawyers.

And just look how they have sold the English down the river.

Don't vote and show your contempt for all of them.

Answer 2

If I was crossing the road with my child I think I'd rather the guy driving down the road towards the crossing was watching the road rather than chewing a burger, drinking a coffee while on the phone to the depot.

Bit of an extreme but the reason we have laws is because not everyone behaves reasonably.

Answer 3

No, we're not becoming a dictatorship, simply because we get to vote our politicians out at regular intervals.

CCTV cameras have made our streets safer, speed cameras have contributed to our roads being the safest in Europe, despite being among the most crowded. A majority of the people support the workplace smoking ban.

Too many people are killed by lorry drivers who aren't concentrating on their driving.

It's not PC, mad or otherwise. It's improving the lifestyle of the majority.

So you won't be free to ignore the speed limits, and poison other people in pubs and workplaces. Your husband won't be allowed to eat his dinner while he steers a lethal weapon through our streets.

My word, aren't you being deprived of your human rights?

Answer 4

But at least we're still free to criticise our nanny state. When they take away our right to write letters to the press expressing our views and when journalists are ordered to produce only articles flattering to the government, then that really will be the end of democracy as we know it. Especially if YA is suppressed!

Answer 5

I work in law enforcement, so I make no objections to CCTV. It makes it much easier to spot baddies and initiate appropriate action to apprehend them. I don't feel any responsible citizen can object to CCTV.

As regards smoking, smokers have been scapegoated as public enemy number one. Once smokers have been totally marginalised, who will be next?. There is, I suppose, some justification for restricting smoking cigarettes, but, in the report that kicked off this entire moral panic, to wit "Smoking and Health Now", cigarette smokers were seen to be most at risk; smokers of pipes and cigars were statistically proven to be much less at risk. I posit the question, why did the Governments not encourage people to change from cigarettes to pipes/cigars, thus enabling people to continue to enjoy an innocent pleasure much more safely, and also preserving much needed tax revenue. I still remain to be convinced that the risks of passive smoking are any greater than passive vehicle-fume inhaling. Until 2 years ago, I worked in London, and I regularly coughed up phlegm that was flecked with black, and I had to use a salbutamol asthma inhaler twice-daily. I now work locally, in Harwich, UK. The black phlegm has disappeared and I use my inhaler so seldom that some of them may have gone out of date. I am a smoker - I smoke a pipe, and, once a week, a decent Honduran or Dominican cigar. My smoking habits in London were the same, so from where did the black phlegm emanate?

The big danger, however, is not noticed by the general public. I refer to the vast changes in criminal law. Until recently (2003), the Crown (Prosecution) had to prove that a defendant had not only committed the crime (actus reus) but had intended to commit the crime, or was sufficiently negigent or reckless as to be criminally irresponsible (mens rea). Today, many ordinary offences only require the Prosecution to prove that the defendant has done the guilty act. This is known as Strict Liability.

An example would be the simple motoring offence of passing a red traffic light. If you shoot the light out of cussedness, fair enough, you should be convicted and have the book thrown at you. However, if you pass a red light to allow an ambulance through, the offence remains the same, and the defence of letting the ambulance through is not admissible.

It is illegal for a fifteen year old to to kiss someone under 13 (Sexual Offences Act 2003)-it is classed as sexual touching and consent to the touching is no defence . I , at 50, male, can marry and have sex with a sixteen year female without any problem, but if I photograph her naked I have committed a crime. I have to wait until she is eighteen before I can photograph what I have seen with my own eyes.

It is an offence for a person to stumble across child porn and inadvertantly see a picture thereof. It is an offence for a person who uses perfectly legitimate internet porn sites to view a site on which under-age people are depicted, even though the site states that the models are over 18. THERE IS NO DEFENCE IN ENGLISH CRIMINAL LAW.

These Acts do include the proviso that a prosecution will only be brought if the Crown Prosecution Service feels that it is in the public interest to proceed, but this is not a safeguard that the citizen can use. Bearing in mind that I was catapulted into a plethora of child porn, in the early days of the internet, by simply mistyping one letter in the word 'girls', what it to prevent some idiot e-terrorist putting the wind up everyone by linking the typing error of yuhoo, or yshoo, to a variety of illegal sites that could bring the Internet Police down onto perfectly innocent people.

This is where dictatorship lies and lurks. No law should be passed in which doing the crime is the only consideration. Yes, if you keep on making typing mistakes to access child porn you should be arraigned, and done on the basis of Caldwell recklessness, but if you inadvertantly commit an offence, with no intention to do so, this possibility should be enshrined in all criminal law. Currently, if you wish, as a parent, to keep out of trouble, lock up your daughters, and your sons. The old game of 'I'll show you mine if you show me yours', which most of us have done in our childhoods, is now illegal, if either child is over 10. I suppose that if you lock up your child you could be done for false imprisonment, but at least this law gives you a defence - it is not Strict, so you can argue that you locked up your kid to prevent him breaking the law. Some barrister will make a mint from the test case!

Answer 6

We can vote them out -Hopefully.But protesting is a waste of time.All you get is a stupid grin,spin, and a continued.Blatant
arrogant disregard to the opinions of the people.These are the
most corrupt group of so called politicians this country has had.

Answer 7

YES!!!Dictatorship: A dictator will, against the will of the people enact laws to suit their own ends...................Labour!
Err! HELLO!!
A dictator will pass statute law that decreases the rights of the people with free speech, freedom of movement and freedom of thought..............................Labour!!!
Err! HELLO!!
A dictator will ensure that those close party members or financial backers will receive unearned rewards..........Labour!!.
Err! HELLO!
The incumbent politicians of this and previous parliaments have continuously eroded the democratic principles to such an extent; we can scarcely recognise the country that our forefathers fought two world wars for. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!............Labour!!!
For a long time now, our parliamentary politicians have become steadily more useless, steadily more corrupt and greedy. The wishes of the public are continually ignored and while we seethe in frustration, our politicians award themselves handsome pay increases, inflated pensions and peerages.

Answer 8

this was typical of the Nazis and we criticised them during the war years but its almost unbelievable to find ourselves in the same street and you ask is this country becoming dictatorial it already is and if we don't get this crowd out of government it will become so bad you wont want to enter out the front door for fear of being arrested yes that's how it got in Germany during Hitlers as Chancellor and that was 12 years

Answer 9

It became this from the moment Bliar got his grubby hands on Downing St. We are being driven back to serfdom, soon we'll give our wages to Brown and then hold our hands out for pocket money.

Answer 10

No, it isn´t.

You can change the government at the next election