On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:51:40 +0100, "Brimstone"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>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?
The potential is there so the probability is that is done. The police
are not noted for half measures when abusing a power
>
>> 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.
I have apoint when I want a return to a free country
>
>>>> 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?
Because much of it was based on english law and that particular piece
was how the law applied in the UK until fairly recently.
>
>> 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?
>
I object to someone being made into a criminal for something they
*might* do. It's quite possible you have a penis. Would you like to be
imprisoned for going equpped for rape?
