Government Evacuation in Times of War/National Emergency

[bigpaul]

(31 October 2013, 17:52)Grumpy Grandpa Wrote:

(31 October 2013, 16:19)bigpaul Wrote:

(31 October 2013, 16:10)Highlander Wrote: I am not saying that this will ever happen,... but if it did I wouldn't expect it to be a government thing,.. you are right they would not have the man power, .. but it might be a possibility that it could happen regionally,..or even a town or village.

All they would have to say, is that it is a way of helping everyone,..and all those with no food would gladly help collect the food,... you wouldnt need to ask hungry people twice

if it gets to that stage I think a lot of us on this forum would have bugged out long before!! if it NOT a government thing as you say, they can sod off!! or get a crossbow bolt through the skull!

---

and its not just me, why should people give up THEIR food which they have PAID for just cos someone else couldn't be bothered to? not that the govt gives a toss about the masses. I can see anything like this leading to bloodshed, not that it'll happen, its only a scenario-one of many.

I also think that if such a thing were to happen, it would likely be a more locally organised thing but, correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't dear Mr Obama recently signed into law the authority for US PTB to do just that? 'Confiscate' from 'hoarders'?

---

In the UK, our government does tend to follow the US lead...

only if we let them.

[Jonas]

[quote='Grumpy Grandpa' pid='74435' dateline='1383238351'
I also think that if such a thing were to happen, it would likely be a more locally organised thing but, correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't dear Mr Obama recently signed into law the authority for US PTB to do just that? 'Confiscate' from 'hoarders'?
[/quote]

Signing a law that 350,000,000,000 people will either ignore or actively resist probably was an exercise in wishfull thinking at best...

[bigpaul]

I do love it that people who have had the intelligence to put something back in good times, in an event get called "hoarders"!!

[Mortblanc]

Obama's mandate was not a "law" is was an executive order. There is a difference. It is also sitting idle at the moment and will for some time because the members of congress must fund the enforcement, and many of them hold gold in their financial portfolios.

The order in reference was aimed at the private possession of gold bullion, not food and supplies.

Almost to the letter identical to what FDR put in place during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

At that time Franklin Roosevelt issued an order making it illegal to possess bullion and forcing the citizens to sell their gold to the U.S. government at $25 an ounce (far below market value). At the end of the buyback he immediately fixed the price of gold at $35 per ounce giving the U.S. treasury 30% profit immediately.

For the next 50 years if was illegal for a U.S. citizen to own gold bullion.

That law is the reason all my precious metal reserves are in the form of jewelry. Wearing ones wealth has always been an acceptable form of transport and exchange.

As for hording personal property, food and supplies; We have always had the rule of eminent domain, which allows confiscation of property for the public good. We have also faced "hording laws" many times. We simply havbe not enforced laws that were already on the books during the memory of our unstudied and brain dead population.

During WW2 it was illegal to own more than 5 tires per vehicle and all critical supplies were controlled and rationed. Those laws were in force for some time after the war was over.

I believe that in GB also, those laws are still on the books but are not enforced. I remember that you had rationing and possession controls well into the 1950s on some items.

[bigpaul]

rationing went on here Monty until 1953, it was stopped in time for the coronation.

[River Song]

No - Sugar/Sweeties were rationed until July 1954

[bigpaul]

(1 November 2013, 15:59)River Song Wrote: No - Sugar/Sweeties were rationed until July 1954

i'm pretty sure they were taken off the ration in time for the coronation RS, so the kiddies could have sweets, or at least that's what my mother always said, I was 5 at the time.

[John]

(1 November 2013, 16:05)bigpaul Wrote:

(1 November 2013, 15:59)River Song Wrote: No - Sugar/Sweeties were rationed until July 1954

i'm pretty sure they were taken off the ration in time for the coronation RS, so the kiddies could have sweets, or at least that's what my mother always said, I was 5 at the time.

5th February 1953: Sweet rationing ends in Britain
Children all over Britain have been emptying out their piggy-banks and heading straight for the nearest sweet-shop as the first unrationed sweets went on sale today.
Toffee apples were the biggest sellers, with sticks of nougat and liquorice strips also disappearing fast.

Sugar itself, though, still remains rationed, and manufacturers say the Ministry of Food should have freed sugar supplies as well as those of sweets and chocolate.

De-rationing of sugar in September 1953, partly as a result of pressure from sweet manufacturers, and finally ended rationing when meat was taken off the ration books in July 1954.

4th July 1954: Housewives celebrate end of rationing
Fourteen years of food rationing in Britain ended at midnight when restrictions on the sale and purchase of meat and bacon were lifted.

AND I still have my National ID card duly stamped by GPO.

[Grumpy Grandpa]

(1 November 2013, 15:32)Mortblanc Wrote: Obama's mandate was not a "law" is was an executive order.

My thanks for the clarification.

[Sunna]

(31 October 2013, 10:37)River Song Wrote:

(30 October 2013, 17:43)Sunna Wrote: thats why their bringing back national service, plenty of troops for goverment control. sorry to help us...

Forgive me Sunna but this is not true. If you are talking about that Private Members Bill recently, it never got past the second reading. It never was. It was never supported by HMG and had no chance of being enacted into law.

Allons-y

thanks i did not know that, it was something i was worried about

---

(2 November 2013, 11:16)Sunna Wrote:

(31 October 2013, 10:37)River Song Wrote:

(30 October 2013, 17:43)Sunna Wrote: thats why their bringing back national service, plenty of troops for goverment control. sorry to help us...

Forgive me Sunna but this is not true. If you are talking about that Private Members Bill recently, it never got past the second reading. It never was. It was never supported by HMG and had no chance of being enacted into law.

Allons-y

thanks i did not know that, it was something i was worried about,i found out about it on this site a few months ago but with the news ban was not updated...