Alang wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:18:44 +0100, "Brimstone"
>
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Alang wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:03:31 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:23:54 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
>>>>>
hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Believe it or not, I quite like speed cameras.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? They're nothing whatsoever to do with road safety, and
>>>>> everything to do with revenue generation.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps he's employed by one of the "safety" camera partnerships.
>>>>
>>> I don't mind speed cameras either. They only trigger if you exceed
>>> the speed limit. Far more dangerous to society are the surveillance
>>> and ANPR cameras and the loss of the right to go about your business
>>> without being bothered by plod except on reasonable suspicion.
>>
>> If you don't have a problem with speed and red light cameras (I'm
>> assuming the latter) why do you object to ANPR cameras if your car
>> is legal?
>
> Because ANPR cameras are surveillance cameras. You don't have to do
> something illegal to have your every car movement recorded.
Are you quite sure that all vehicle passing an ANPR are recorded?
> Something
> in a free country that I find abhorrent. They are one step short of
> permits to be out after curfew.
In a free country, you might have a point.
>>> With CCTV and road blocks and mass searches at stations anyone
>>> saying we don't have a police state is a fool.
>>
>> There is a difference between a police state and a survellience
>> state. We don't have the former, yet. Although some of the PC
>> do-gooders would like that to happen.
>
> In a non police state the police have to have reasonable cause to
> interfere with those going about their lawful business. US bill of
> rights article...
>
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
> not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
> place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" ...
>
> Is guarded strenuously.
>
> When the police can cordon off whole areas and search anyone in them
> or set up road blocks and question everyone stopped then everyone is a
> suspect and we have a police state.
What has the US Bill of Rights got to do with the UK?
> They have recently taken to swarming bus and rail stations and waving
> metal detectors over people and using the detection of keys and coins
> as a feeble excuse to search for *offensive weapons*. Perhaps if the
> police and their scummy pals in the press stopped telling young people
> the only use for a knife is to stick it in someone we would have fewer
> stabbings. But that doesn't make exciting headlines in the press or on
> TV
So you object to scroates with knives being prevented from using them on
you?
