> 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:
>>>>>

>>>>>> middlelight@googlemail.com 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?