BIG Brother Has arrived--NOW

livvy wrote: scarface wrote: stephenperry wrote: In July this year the London Safety Camera Partnership returned £330,000 to motorists caught by speed cameras after there was found to be insufficient warning of a 20mph zone on the Embankment There's a 20mph zone on the embankment?  It was Upper Thames Street roadworks.

And you can meet the hero who stuffed the London Scamera mob on here : http://www.traffic-answers.com/forum/index.php

scarface wrote: stephenperry wrote: In July this year the London Safety Camera Partnership returned £330,000 to motorists caught by speed cameras after there was found to be insufficient warning of a 20mph zone on the Embankment There's a 20mph zone on the embankment?

It was Upper Thames Street roadworks.

Nigel wrote: Don't bet on it Rhys, there will be an exemption somewhere

livvy wrote: spokey wrote: 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. I would oppose any attempt to introduce it, but I would be bound by it if it was law the same as anyone else.

Apart from the necessary exemptions that the police always seem to get, of course!

stephenperry wrote: Moving on....but not by much!

John (B 7 VP) has already posted that link a page or two back this morning.


Edited by livvy

spokey wrote: 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.

I would oppose any attempt to introduce it, but I would be bound by it if it was law the same as anyone else.

spokey wrote: livvy wrote: It's still goes over my boundaries of acceptability & those of society. But why? If they don't use those records unless there is a crime, then WHAT POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE does it make?

I've already stated that is my personal viewpoint of what I consider invasive & unacceptable without a court order. That's enough for me

livvy wrote: It's still goes over my boundaries of acceptability & those of society.

But why? If they don't use those records unless there is a crime, then WHAT POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE does it make?

spokey wrote: livvy wrote: 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. 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.

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

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