Hacker News Reader

Comment by DarkmSparks | Hacker News Reader

more than just forums, it's basically a failed state now. I knew when I left (I was the last of my school year to do so) it was going to get bad once Elizabeth died, and that would be soon, but I never imagined it would get this bad.

The plan for April is to remove the need for police to obtain a warrant to search peoples homes - that bad.

I'd say "there will be blood on the streets", but there already is...

This video pretty much sums up what the UK is now. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zzstEpSeuwU

View on HN

No, the proposal is that there is a power of entry where the police have reasonable grounds to believe stolen property is on the premises and that this is supported by tracking data and that authority to enter is provided and recorded by a police inspector.

This is analogous to s18 PACE post-arrest powers, grafted onto s17 PACE.

The alternative is that we continue to require police to try and get a fast-time warrant while plotted up outside a premises; this is not a quick process, I've done it and it took nearly two hours.

>there will be blood on the streets

Oh, dry up.

The topic here is how they made running public forums a crime.

After making secure communications a crime.

And you think a state like that cares about the formalities? lol..

They just doing what every other monarchy and dictatorship has done in a desperate bid to hold onto power while the state collapses due to inept leadership.

> The topic here is how they made running public forums a crime.

You brought up warrants, they counterpointed the warrants.

> And you think a state like that cares about the formalities? lol..

The warrant is a formality, isn't it? I'm pretty sure you're arguing against your own point now.

I find it terrifying that you consider this to be legitimate grounds for a search, and a reasonable procedure for obtaining permission to do so. They should get in line and get permission from proper legal authorities, like all other law enforcement.

While I hate how the UK is becoming even more of a police state, that law (or that part of a law) is the least worthy of criticism. It simply codifies one instance of reasonable grounds for a search, so that it does not have to be decided on a case-by-case basis by a judge. I.e. a judge is asked to decide if something is justified grounds for a search - now the law says "this narrow case is justified grounds, you don't have to ask a judge".

Or in other words, the proper legal authorities are parliament and the law itself. Sometimes the law needs interpreting and judgment calls, which where warrants come in. This law removes the need for interpretation in one narrow and clearly defined case. If before judges were expected to issue warrants on the kind of evidence that this law requires, then now codifying that expectation and removing what has now become nothing but a bureaucratic delay doesn't reduce liberty.

Are you familiar with the current powers of entry in E&W per s17 & s18 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984?

> The plan for April is to remove the need for police to obtain a warrant to search peoples homes - that bad.

This seems to be limited to stolen geo-tagged items: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/25/police-new-p...

I would agree that this law is a slippery slope, but at the same time we should not omit important facts.

Its not a slippery slope, its carte blanche for a police force with a reputation for e.g. beating elderly people to death because they looked at them wrong (most famous being Ian Tomlison, but its fairly regular) to not have to hold back just simply because they run into a locked door.

And that is before you get into the court system, which if you need a quick primer, just look at the treatment of Julian Assange - and thats a "best case" for someone with millions of global supporters.

Uk police have targets to hit, they can't hit those targets going after real criminals, so they predominantly target people nieve enough to think they want to help them.

Of course they had to make running public forums a crime.

I'm sorry, are you accusing the UK police of killing more innocent old people than the US police? Because if so that's a funny joke.

I'm more depressed that he considers 47 to be old

I'm here wondering in which part of that statement there's a comparison to the US police.

>I knew when I left (I was the last of my school year to do so) it was going to get bad once Elizabeth died

How small was your school year?! What does Elizabeth (presumably the 2nd) dying have to do with anything?

>What does Elizabeth (presumably the 2nd) dying have to do with anything?

Lets just say her replacements brother is Andrew, and his best mate was Jimmey Saville. Should tell you all you need to know about her replacement with less chance of me ending up like David Kelly.

Heads of state do matter, regardless of how much propaganda they push that they only matter in other countries. These laws are not something the labour voters asked for.

First of all, the King isn’t Prince Andrew. That guy simply isn’t the head of state and nor will he ever be.

Secondly, the British monarchy have absolutely nothing to do with politics and have remained impartial for nearly 100 years.

The UK government has always been right wing compared to most of the rest of western Europe. It sucks, but it is what it is. But the way you’re talking is as if the UK has suddenly gone to hell when the reality is just that this is just more of the same.

If anything, the biggest footgun the UK has done was leaving the EU, and that was something the dumb British public voted for. We did it to ourselves.

I don’t understand this. The monarchy hasn’t had influence over parliament and the government for over 300 years. You may be able to point to attempts at doing so (eg the Black Spider letter), however, parliament is fully sovereign.

Kier Starmer is (pretty much) to the UK what JD Vance is to the US.

Appointed by the head of state. Meets the head of state regularly to be told what to do (wednesdays iirc).

Think about what it has taken for you to say what you just said despite those facts.

We are also talking about what is still the richest, most most powerful family on the planet. You think Elon musk is rich for owning Tesla and Twitter, these guys still own for example, England, Wales, Canada and Australia.

To say the British monarchy "owns" Canada and Australia is comical

comically true.

its called crown land

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_land

The monarchy does have influence [0], but no more than Liz did

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret...

[flagged]

"it was going to get bad once Elizabeth died"

What do you think she was doing?

I'm sure she had massively strong views on the online safety act and encryption

This comment has got daily mail reader written all over it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com