BIG Brother Has arrived--NOW |
Post Reply | Page <1 5678> |
Author | ||||
Nigel
Moderator Group Joined: 09-November-2002 Status: Offline Points: 6941 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 12:47 | |||
Do you have a personal opinion on warning other motorists about speedtraps Livvy ? In all the time ( & places) we have discussed this, you've never expressed one. You know I'm on the side of the warners ( being one myself), and think the police should stop being stupid and get on with other things. |
||||
Best Wishes
Nigel |
||||
Sponsored Links | ||||
livvy
Really Senior Member II Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 12:59 | |||
I have mixed feelings about it.
I think it is a good thing that people encourage people to be aware of their speed, but I think it is a bad thing to do it only where Police are prosecuting offenders & the intention is only to frustrate justice. That is a view that I would have in common with other offences where people obstruct the Police, not just for speeding. ie Where someone tries to discourage someone from drink driving = good. Where someone puts up a sign saying "turn left to avoid Police drink drive check point ahead" = bad. Edited by livvy |
||||
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||||
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard Joined: 02-March-2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1948 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 14:56 | |||
Yes, anybody who was ever met by a terrorist, even the guy who sells him his cigarettes. Watching every movement a car makes is pretty invasive. And if they just wiretap every Muslim household and don't listen to the recordings until they need to refer to something, surely that's no more invasive? |
||||
Ciao,
Spokey |
||||
livvy
Really Senior Member II Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 15:34 | |||
I disagree, one is more invasive than the other. One selects a group on
the grounds of religion as well which is not on, the other doesn't.
You can't just wiretap anyone in law , you can have cameras in the street in law. Edited by livvy |
||||
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||||
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard Joined: 02-March-2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1948 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 15:49 | |||
OK, why not wiretap everybody, and leave the conversations stored somewhere? Then if any crime is committed, they can just refer to the conversations that were wiretapped. |
||||
Ciao,
Spokey |
||||
livvy
Really Senior Member II Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 15:52 | |||
Because it's not allowed in law without a court order, cameras are.
Edited by livvy |
||||
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||||
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard Joined: 02-March-2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1948 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 15:56 | |||
So if they changed the law to allow wiretapping the entire population for the purpose outlined, you wouldn't consider that to be an invasion of privacy? |
||||
Ciao,
Spokey |
||||
livvy
Really Senior Member II Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 15:59 | |||
No I consider it right that phone calls can't be tapped without a court order.
|
||||
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||||
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard Joined: 02-March-2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1948 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 16:03 | |||
But if it was legal, the same way that cameras are legal, and it could help to reduce crime and catch terrorists, surely it would be a good thing? And nobody would be discriminated against, and they would only be able to review the calls in the case of a charge being brought? Come on, surely you can see that it would be a great way of catching crooks. |
||||
Ciao,
Spokey |
||||
livvy
Really Senior Member II Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 16:26 | |||
No
I happen to think that phone calls are private & the authorities shouldn't be able to llisten in on them without previously having shown good reason to a court. I don't think that people's movements in public places are the same. Those are my boundaries, different to, but much like you have your boundaries of acceptability. If there was a proposed change to say that the authorities could tap phones without a court order I would voice my opinion against that, but with cameras in public places, or where an individual chooses to put cameras up (within reason) on their private property I support that decision. Phone taps on everyone would require a change in the law, cameras do not, they are within the boundaries of societies levels of acceptability as defined in law currently. A position that I am happy with on both counts. Edited by livvy |
||||
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||||
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard Joined: 02-March-2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1948 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 18:09 | |||
But they WON'T be listening to them. They'll just be recorded and if they are needed as evidence, then they will be listened to. |
||||
Ciao,
Spokey |
||||
livvy
Really Senior Member II Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 18:38 | |||
It's still goes over my boundaries of acceptability & those of society. Quite simply it boils down to this in my view. Every 5 years (or so) we get to vote for a party that we believe best represents our political outlook, whose manifesto compares most favourably with what we want done in the next 5 years. The winners form the government of the day. We have entrusted them to run the country & pass bills through parliament to make laws in our name. Make society's rules in effect, that we all have to abide by or be prosecuted for not doing so. Many of these rules have remained unchanged for generations & some get changed quite frequently. At the end of their term we get to make our choices again, so if they really pee us off we can get rid of them, or if they are still the best of a bad bunch we'll keep them. Now for them to be ousted mid term, there has to be a real falling out with the public. If we really strongly disagree with the things they propose, then a revolution is in the offing. But for that to happen, what they propose has to be really against the grain for a large sizeable portion of the public. A large sizeable portion that are willing to risk all, because they feel that strongly about the proposed issues at hand. The goverment will carefully monitor feeling on these issues, so that they are quite aware of exactly what they can & can't get away with. What the polls say. More often than not, there are a relatively small very vocal minority, who strenuously oppose the proposals & there are also a very vocal minority who are strongly in favour. By far the largest group however, are the apathetic masses who lay in the middle. Although the issue may affect their lives a little, they don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, certainly not strong enough to do anything about it & they will just go with the flow. What will be will be is their view on things. That's life. Now it is my judgement, (I could of course be wrong & time will tell) that the majority of people fall into my last described apathetic group over this issue. As such the government of the day will have their way because the minority who oppose it don't have sufficient support for revolution. There is not the depth of feeling required for it. Those vehemently against it, will merely become increasingly frustrated at the apathetic allowing it to pass them by doing nothing. If they then, through their frustration, take more direct action (ie criminal acts) they will be dealt with for their actions as criminals. That I also believe is the position with speed cameras, much to the dismay of the vociferous against them. They may affect us all to a degree, but the numbers willing to go out on a limb against them are relatively small. While many will sound off about them, the numbers who are willing to really stand up & be heard about it, are nowhere near enough. There just isn't the strength of feeling, numbers are too small. The government wins the day again, thanks to the apathetic masses. Edited by livvy |
||||
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||||
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard Joined: 02-March-2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1948 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 19:16 | |||
And, of course, those who defend their dogma. |
||||
Ciao,
Spokey |
||||
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard Joined: 02-March-2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1948 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 19:18 | |||
But why? If they don't use those records unless there is a crime, then WHAT POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE does it make? |
||||
Ciao,
Spokey |
||||
livvy
Really Senior Member II Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 19:32 | |||
OR those who's viewpoint it just happens to match |
||||
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||||
livvy
Really Senior Member II Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 19:33 | |||
I've already stated that is my personal viewpoint of what I consider invasive & unacceptable without a court order. That's enough for me |
||||
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||||
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard Joined: 02-March-2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1948 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 19:35 | |||
But if it didn't need a court order, if it was legal, and had been for a decade, you'd have no qualms, surely? Think of all the lives you could save, and the people you could prove innocent. Edited by spokey |
||||
Ciao,
Spokey |
||||
livvy
Really Senior Member II Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 19:44 | |||
I would oppose any attempt to introduce it, but I would be bound by it if it was law the same as anyone else. |
||||
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||||
stephenperry
Bavarian-Board Contributor Joined: 20-April-2004 Location: Elgin Status: Offline Points: 7213 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 19:49 | |||
moving on.... but not by much!
Charles Glendinning, 56, was found guilty by magistrates but cleared on appeal when a court ruled that the police could not prove that any speeding motorist had slowed as a result of his actions. The Crown Prosecution Service is seeking the right to go to the House of Lords to overturn the legal technicality on which he was cleared. It says that it should not have to establish that any driver slowed as a result of arm waving or the flashing of headlights before being able to win a conviction for obstructing a police officer. The CPS has referred the case to the Appeal Court’s administrative court seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The request said: “For there to be an obstruction of a PC in the execution of his duty by getting in the way of a police speed trap, is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that those warned were exceeding the speed or were likely to do so at that location?” Mr Glendinning, of Yeovil in Somerset, was arrested last year and accused of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. He denied that he was trying to warn other motorists of the speed camera on the A303 at Stoke Trister near Yeovil. Mr Glendinning said that his lorry had mechanical failures and he was warning other drivers that he was slowing to pull into a lay-by. He was pulled over by the police and found guilty by Yeovil magistrates last December of obstruction. In March he won his appeal against the conviction. The CPS appealed, claiming that it should not have to prove that speeding drivers had slowed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the case. Mr Glendinning said that he had spent £3,000 on the hearings at the magistrates’ and Crown courts. “I can only imagine how much this has cost the taxpayers already,” he said. A spokeswoman for the CPS said: “Clearly there is an issue of law here that needs to be clarified and that is what we are seeking to do.” FLASHPOINTS |
||||
2007 Ford Mondeo 2.0 TDCI Titanium X Auto 1983 Ford Sierra XR4i 2000 Alpina B10 3.3 #118 1999 BMW 323Ci 1995 BMW 318i SE 1994 Vauxhall Omega 2.0 GLS 1995 Ford Mondeo 1.8 LX 1990 Honda Concerto 1.6 EX 1986 Ford Orion 1.6 GL 1989 Ford Fiesta 1.1 Firefly |
||||
livvy
Really Senior Member II Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-December-2005 at 19:52 | |||
John (B 7 VP) has already posted that link a page or two back this morning. Edited by livvy |
||||
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||||
Post Reply | Page <1 5678> |
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |