@ Mark

<< Because the main reason for it was to say that the police aren't using it, so it's not being abused and so don't worry about it. >>

Not quite what I meant. I meant that it seems inconsistent to me to imply first that the police are tyrannical oppressors because they're *expected* to abuse this law; then, when it becomes apparent that for the moment at least they're *not* abusing it, to accuse them of being oppressors on the basis of an *assumption* (apparently) that, well, they *must* be threatening people with it instead.

As I said, I can't see how those of an anti-police persuasion can have it both ways - it seems a bit doublethink to me.

<< Why is the law there if the police won't use it? >>

Well, nobody picked up on my earlier comment about the police passing the law... But that was intended to make the point that, despite the pre-emptive accusations being levelled at the police, it *isn't* actually them that pass laws: it's government. The police are simply duty-bound to *enforce* the laws. But, where the law is more a tool, like this one, it seems a positive thing to me that the police aren't (for the moment at least) taking the opportunity to exploit it.

<< Why is the police not abusing it mean that the law is OK? >>

It doesn't, at all. This particular law is very far from okay. But the bulk of the criticisms here - at least the ones I'm responding to - are being levelled at the 'pigs'. But if the law is created by our supposed 'representatives', and the police don't use it (at least as much as we feared they might, and at least at the moment), then the criticism should surely be directed at those who *made* the law.

<< And why is it OK to have a law that CAN be abused, even if the police aren't using it >>

Again, it's not okay. And again, the criticism that I'm responding to is that preemptive variety that's largely based on generalised prejudice against the police and a presumption that, as a law enforcement agency, they must be automatons bent on subjugating the population under the unyielding rule of a totalitarian dictatorship. I see no reason to assume that most of them (bearing in mind I accept that they have their share of idiots and crooks, just as every group does) are just honest, taxpaying citizens trying to make the best of a bad lot, but without the political rights that the rest of us have.

Maybe I am living in fluffy bunny land, at that: but if I'm going to err, I'd rather err towards extending someone the benefit of the doubt until I've reason to assume them guilty. That goes for all citizens, including those who work as police officers.

Again, my only real point is that if you want to criticise law, criticise those who MAKE it, not those who're duty- and mortgage-bound to comply with it.

That's pretty much all I can say on the subject, and since I must've used up a year's worth of comment space already, I'll bow out.

@Tasksis

Fair enough on your second post, but it does leave your first one flapping in the wind.

Because the main reason for it was to say that the police aren't using it, so it's not being abused and so don't worry about it.

That's what I took away from it anyway.

And your second post was correct. It just didn't say how the three things are connected. Why is the law there if the police won't use it? Why is the police not abusing it mean that the law is OK? And why is it OK to have a law that CAN be abused, even if the police aren't using it (because they'd have to use it before it can be abused).