|
Kaep apparently has his own publishing outfit now and is kicking it off with a bunch of essays on abolition by extremely smart and cool rear end people. https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/1313566658540208129
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
Recently heard that in Nigeria the massive anti police brutality protests forced the government to abolish its infamous SARS units. But like in many other cases "abolish" has a different meaning when politicians say it. https://twitter.com/jackieaina/status/1315349545241333760?s=19
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
Cool resource on defunding the police: https://twitter.com/micahherskind/status/1316425654020255744 Really clear, succinct information that is very accessible to young people in particular.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
Relevant to the discussion of cops is probably the fact that the UK is likely to legalize criminal conduct by the police later today. https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1316715071171710977 It is "not a new capability" because they have been doing it for a long time without it being legal, so the recourse, is obviously to make it legal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 13:34
|
|
|
It's not nearly as sinister as people are making out. It's effectively Kings Evidence rebranded and regulated. They swap insider information for no or lesser punishment. By formally regulating it it's arguably much less prone to potential corruption.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 14:38
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:It's not nearly as sinister as people are making out. It's literally setting up a pre-existing authorization for cops and security services to commit any criminal act on the basis that: "A criminal conduct authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary—(a)in the interests of national security;(b)for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder; or(c)in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom." And it does so by amending the regulation of investigatory powers act of 2000 to include "The conduct that is authorised by a criminal conduct authorisation is any conduct that—(a)is comprised in any activities—(i)which involve criminal conduct in the course of, orotherwise in connection with, the conduct of a covert human intelligence source, and(ii)are specified or described in the authorisation;(b)consists in conduct by or in relation to the person who is so specified or described as the covert human intelligence source to whom the authorisation relates; and (c)is carried out for the purposes of, or in connection with, theinvestigation or operation so specified or described." The RIPA is the bill that authorizes state surveillance, according to its own introduction "An Act to make provision for and about the interception of communications, the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications, the carrying out of surveillance, the use of covert human intelligence sources and the acquisition of the means by which electronic data protected by encryption or passwords may be decrypted or accessed; to provide for Commissioners and a tribunal with functions and jurisdiction in relation to those matters, to entries on and interferences with property or with wireless telegraphy and to the carrying out of their functions by the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters; and for connected purposes." Now granted I haven't picked apart the entire RIPA because it is long and legislation is hard to parse at the best of times but it does not appear to have anything to do with people who have been charged with a crime making some sort of deal to lower their sentence, it is amending a specific piece of legislation that gives security services the right to investigate people. The authorization makes things that would be crimes not crimes if the police can argue that they were "preventing disorder" by doing them. Like on the face of it this would presumably entirely remove the need for warrants, because as long as the police have "the purpose of detecting crime" by breaking into your house then it was not a crime for them to do that. It "formally regulates" it by basically making it impossible for the police to commit crimes. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Oct 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's literally setting up a pre-existing authorization for cops and security services to commit any criminal act on the basis that: No it's putting legislation in place that makes them need authorisation. It also introduces a paper-trail along with that authorisation, which obviously will come with a much higher degree of accountability than we currently have while these things just happen anyway only in secret. Section 29(b) is all about the various authorisations, the limits of them and the need to seek alternatives to sanctioned naughtiness where possible. Copied from the bill itself https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0188/200188.pdf Massive wall-o-legislation in spoiler 29B Covert human intelligence sources: criminal conduct authorisations (1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part, the persons designated for the purposes of this section each have power to grant criminal conduct authorisations. (2) A “criminal conduct authorisation” is an authorisation for criminal conduct in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of a covert human intelligence source. (3) A criminal conduct authorisation may only be granted in relation to a covert human intelligence source after, or at the same time as, an authorisation under section 29 which authorises the conduct or the use of the covert human intelligence source concerned. (4) A person may not grant a criminal conduct authorisation unless the person believes— (a) that the authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (5); (b) that the authorised conduct is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct; and (c) that arrangements exist that satisfy such requirements as may be imposed by order made by the Secretary of State. (5) A criminal conduct authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary— (a) in the interests of national security; (b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder; or (c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. (6) In considering whether the requirements in subsection (4)(a) and (b) are satisfied, the person must take into account whether what is sought to be achieved by the authorised conduct could reasonably be achieved by other conduct which would not constitute crime. (7) Subsection (6) is without prejudice to the need to take into account other matters so far as they are relevant (for example, the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998). (8) The conduct that is authorised by a criminal conduct authorisation is any conduct that— (a) is comprised in any activities— (i) which involve criminal conduct in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of a covert human intelligence source, and (ii) are specified or described in the authorisation; (b) consists in conduct by or in relation to the person who is so specified or described as the covert human intelligence source to whom the authorisation relates; and Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill 3 (c) is carried out for the purposes of, or in connection with, the investigation or operation so specified or described. (9) If an authorisation under section 29, which authorises the conduct or the use of a covert human intelligence source to whom a criminal conduct authorisation relates, ceases to have effect, the criminal conduct authorisation also ceases to have effect so far as it relates to that covert human intelligence source (but this is without prejudice to whether the criminal conduct authorisation continues to have effect so far as it relates to any other covert human intelligence source). (10) The Secretary of State may by order— (a) prohibit the authorisation under this section of any such conduct as may be described in the order; and (b) impose requirements, in addition to those provided for by subsections (3) and (4), that must be satisfied before an authorisation is granted under this section for any such conduct as may be so described.” OwlFancier posted:It "formally regulates" it by basically making it impossible for the police to commit crimes. That's just exaggeration for dramatic effect. These things are already happening so regulation is a positive step. It's also worth bearing in mind it's also about naughty people informing on naughty people and they probably outnumber undercover cops by a considerable margin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
That is a very long winded way of saying "the person authorizing must think it is a good idea" where the person authorizing is "the police force" or, weirdly, the food standards agency or any of the other organs of the state, including the armed forces. And again, it was illegal for them to do it before, this is saying "the police are committing crimes, so we must make it legal for the police to commit crimes, this will result in them committing fewer crimes." This is not how it works when anybody else commits crimes. It is not, as far as I can tell, at all limited to undercover cops, it is literally something a huge number of government organs can now authorize. This, by the way, is happening right next to the bill aimed at making it harder to prosecute people for war crimes in the UK. Why on earth you would take this as a good thing from a helpful government who we can rely on to use good faith judgement in the application of the incredibly broad powers the bill affords, is baffling. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Oct 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
It's what real police reform looks like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
I wonder why people want to abolish them if "we must allow them to kill and torture people" is what reform looks like. Amazingly if you look at the parent legislation all its qualifiers are "at the discretion of the authorizer, in the interest of national security" too. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/29/enacted So please, tell me more about how this isn't just handing legal power to the police to authorize themselves under their own oversight to do whatever they want. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Oct 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I wonder why people want to abolish them if "we must allow them to kill and torture people" is what reform looks like. You need to approach these things one step at a time. Deciding abolishing the cops will instantly result in a utopia is nice but it's an utterly impossible fantasy. You need to work with what you have and the situation as it actually is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Morningwoodpecker posted:You need to approach these things one step at a time. Deciding abolishing the cops will instantly result in a utopia is nice but it's an utterly impossible fantasy. Yes, clearly the first incremental step is making police more immune to law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
This in context of the police already getting away killing people in the UK, of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yes, clearly the first incremental step is making police more immune to law. Read section 29(b) above.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
The tribunal seemingly responsible for overseeing uses of the RIPA also has a rather sparse history and some rather amusing limitations. https://www.ipt-uk.com/content.asp?id=15 quote:The Tribunal can consider complaints from anyone who thinks they may have been subject to interception by public authorities under RIPA. quote:The Tribunal is not obliged to investigate conduct which occurred more than one year prior to the submission of the complaint. If a complainant would like the Tribunal to consider a complaint of conduct that happened outside this timescale, they must provide an explanation for the delay in submitting their complaint. The Tribunal can only consider such complaints if it considers it fair and reasonable to do so. The Tribunal will therefore consider the explanation along with the details of the complaint, and make a decision on whether it should be accepted and investigated, and for what period. Feeling real good about them checks on police power. If the police unlawfully authorize your murder that would be a criminal offence and would be a matter for investigation by... the police! But make sure you lodge a complaint within 1 year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The tribunal seemingly responsible for overseeing uses of the RIPA also has a rather sparse history and some rather amusing limitations. RIPA is separate legislation, it stands for the regulation of investigatory powers. It's not a 00 agents license to kill or where you'd go to complain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:47
|
|
|
RIPA is the legislation that the CHIS bill is amending. All of its provisions are now part of RIPA, that's where the creation of a "covert human intelligence source" is defined and to which the criminal activity authorization is appended, as well as where oversight of the use of the powers is described. CHIS is not standalone legislation, it says as much at the start, it is inserting new powers into RIPA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/hnnhgskll/status/1316840494937313280 No, incrementalism isn't the way to go you go full steam ahead I've said it every page of this thread, waiting for something to be popular should not be the goal of doing the right thing. You do it while it needs doing and let everyone realize it was the right thing to do later. Progress always has required people being dragged along with it, kicking and screaming.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
A full steam ahead approach requires active efforts from a group of people willing to let the ends justify the means. They're essentially willing to become the social sacrifice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
Any actual progress requires people actually support progress, something which our politicians have repeatedly spoken out against.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
I'd like to add some of the stuff in here to the D&D Resource Thread, does anyone have any recommendations? The OP has some good stuff, I'm more talking stuff buried in the thread or helpful stuff that hasn't been posted
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/fran_chambers/status/1334120230864433156?s=20 I have to say, I'm honestly a little surprised by the heat Obama is getting for these comments. Especially when during that same interview he said that AOC and the rest of the squad deserve a larger platform.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
I think it is worth considering that a US president didn't completely shut down the idea and instead gave, like, advice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 23:48
|
|
|
This issue isn't with how activists are talking about it, the issue is that portion of Democrats largely do not support the idea and do not want to craft a better or more "effective" phrasing. They literally do not want to reform or defund the police, beyond lip service.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
Agreed, I do think Barack maybe should have been a little more clear that he supports defunding the police. And I to do but the marketing, advertising and sales aspect seems lost among quite a few progressives. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This issue isn't with how activists are talking about it, the issue is that portion of Democrats largely do not support the idea and do not want to craft a better or more "effective" phrasing. Okay, What makes you think that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Okay, The actions of democratic politicians in major cities, who largely have supported their PDs. Some have voiced support for defunding but most haven't actually followed through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:They literally do not want to reform or defund the police, beyond lip service. I'm not sure if I can think of a recognizable Democrat who wouldn't be for police reform. Defunding, sure, 100% - there's plenty of Democrats who will align themselves with that phrase without any desire to meaningfully defund the police, and more still who reject the notion of defunding altogether.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
He was president for eight years, if he wanted to do something about the police he would have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:He was president for eight years, if he wanted to do something about the police he would have. Well he held a beer summit about racialized policing and all the while silently blamed his friend for getting wrongfully arrested https://twitter.com/daniel_dsj2110/status/1333874806228480003?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The actions of democratic politicians in major cities, who largely have supported their PDs. Which ones specifically? I'm trying to understand how we're reaching the conclusion that Democrats merely saying words but not following through with actions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 00:33
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Which ones specifically? I'm trying to understand how we're reaching the conclusion that Democrats merely saying words but not following through with actions. You're trying to expand my statement to "all" instead of "most", which is what I'm actually saying. Here's an article with data/chart to support that argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:You're trying to expand my statement to "all" instead of "most", which is what I'm actually saying. I'm not trying expand anything but in any event to avoid confusion - I'll go with largely democrats. That's a good article but I don't see how you are able reach the conclusion that - "portion of Democrats largely do not support the idea and do not want to craft a better or more "effective" phrasing." from that article. Even in the article itself, it shows the changes to Austin budget took years, unions had set deals with cities giving local governments no legal mechanism for defunding, a one time purchase of new equipment or merely funding additional pensions. If you want an example of backstabbing lip service - see Rahm Emanuel but he's just one horribly crude politician.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 01:55
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I'm not trying expand anything but in any event to avoid confusion - I'll go with largely democrats. Jenny Durkan? Ted Wheeler?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
If they pulled the same poo poo Rahm did - that is slowly becoming a good persuasive argument.
Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I'm not trying expand anything but in any event to avoid confusion - I'll go with largely democrats. More than 50% of cities in that data have not reduced budget at all. If you are saying that "they're so against it they are not even paying lip service to that", I'm right there with you. That's not even going into cities that are slow-rolling cuts or backtracking when there is less attention.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:26
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:More than 50% of cities in that data have not reduced budget at all. And? I don't see anyone could reasonably conclude from that article that "Democrats largely do not support the idea and do not want to craft a better or more "effective" phrasing." And as far as I am concerned, Progressives are shooting themselves in the foot. Sure Democrats aren't perfect, many aren't good at all - see Rahm Emanuel - but they are the best shot at reform and the current messaging is incendiary, confusing and easily weaponized by the opposing party. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
Sometimes I wonder if "Break Up the police" should have been the snappy slogan. It's more accurate. And lots of people say that public libraries should be broken up into separate library-libraries and homeless shelters, so there's a built-in picture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:And as far as I am concerned, Progressives are shooting themselves in the foot. Sure Democrats aren't perfect, many aren't good at all - see Rahm Emanuel - but they are the best shot at reform and the current messaging is incendiary, confusing and easily weaponized by the opposing party. I don't want reform. I don't want bans on chokeholds; they use them anyway and have plenty of other methods by which to harm and kill people. I don't want police oversight boards; we have one and they do nothing. I don't want coffee with a cop; cops are racist murderers. I don't want them doing photo-ops with high-school kids that they're mentoring; the last time they tried that poo poo there were a string of rapes and sexual assaults by cops on those kids. I don't want a nicer occupying force that does lipsync music videos on youtube. I want the police out of my community where they harass, brutalize and murder people every day, and I want that money that currently pays them to be spent on things the community actually needs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
I mean, a phrase like "Reform the Police" would be perfect but it's that many police reforms have been ineffective or essentially bullshit. It's no surprise that people don't trust it, I don't lame them but defunding the police isn't good messaging. It's like the Estate Tax vs. Death Tax. Global Warming vs. Climate Change. We really need a progressive version of Frank Luntz.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 02:47
|
|