On 2/13/09, Amita Guha <amita.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/13/brits-rally-to-save.html > > http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=839141
Reading between the lines a bit. They pitch it to the public as a means to protect policemen from terrorists, and to prevent terrorists from obtaining information related to ongoing investigations, or some crap like that. In reality, it works kinda like this. The police arrest some jerk for a minor infraction and said jerk gets lippy. So the police give him the ol' wood shampoo. Someone with a cell phone snaps a few frames. Police claim shampoo'd jerk could have been a terrorist. Maybe. They think. Perhaps. Cell phone snapper is detained under section 76, pictures deleted, police experience no repercussions for breaking the law and the cell phone snapper does 10 years in a cage with Bubba. Am I missing something? -- Scott Loveless Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008 http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
