http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece

I especially liked this part:

"They will also introduce £60 on-the-spot fines for careless drivers, and
tighten legislation to ensure higher conviction rates for drug-driving."

On the spot fines, dished out by what plod? Or are they proposing
cameras that can detect "funny driving" and automatically tag stick a
fine to on your car as you drive past?

I'm also always in favour of "tightening legislation to ensure higher
conviction rates. Why not do away with the all the unnecessary legal
crap and just make some Home Orifice bureaucrat judge, jury and
executioner instead of having to bother going through the motions so it
at least looks like it's a legal process?

And no, I'm not in favour of drug-driving, drink-driving etc but I don't
like the legal system being fiddled with to boost some fucking statistic
or other. It's a bit too important for that sort of shit.

-- 
Morini Corsaro 125 | CB450K4 | XL250 Motosport | 900SSD | R1150RT
Laverda SF2 | Harley FXD                       BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10
The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html
"Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:47:06 +0100 in uk.rec.motorcycles, Timo Geusch
says:

>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>
>And no, I'm not in favour of drug-driving, drink-driving etc but I don't
>like the legal system being fiddled with to boost some fucking statistic
>or other. It's a bit too important for that sort of shit.

It's pretty much par for the course with the present government,
gestures to try and get some attention form their mainly mouth
breathing supporters.

-- 
Ian
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he deleted C:\WINDOWS.

Timo Geusch  wrote in message
:

>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>
>I especially liked this part:
>
>"They will also introduce £60 on-the-spot fines for careless drivers, and
>tighten legislation to ensure higher conviction rates for drug-driving."

I must admit I didn't like *any* part.  It's simply legislation to
pander to the lobbyists; like a lot done by this government (and
possibly also past tory governments.)

<snip>

>And no, I'm not in favour of drug-driving, drink-driving etc but I don't
>like the legal system being fiddled with to boost some fucking statistic
>or other. It's a bit too important for that sort of shit.

I'm convinced I'm safer driving whilst (moderately) drunk than half of
the fuckwits I watch every fucking day.  There ought to be an aptitude
test rather than an inebriation test.

And re the legal system being a bit too important; I don't know if I
agree.  I think it's fucked anyway and as long as it doesn't convict me
or mine I don't give much of a shit.
-- 
K75RT, K1100LT, ZXR750H1, 5TA, K100/ST2

Z500/Velorex chair for sale shortly...

In article , Timo Geusch <tnewsSPAMMEN
OT@unixconsult.co.uk> writes
>
> I don't
>like the legal system being fiddled with to boost some fucking statistic
>or other. It's a bit too important for that sort of shit.

Nail - Hammer, a perfect meeting of the two.


-- 
steve auvache
A Bloo one with built in safety features

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:47:06 +0100, Timo Geusch
 wrote:

>Or are they proposing
>cameras that can detect "funny driving" and automatically tag stick a
>fine to on your car as you drive past?

So drive *seriously* fast and they won't detect you.

-- 
-Pip

Timo Geusch wrote:
>  I'm also always in favour of "tightening legislation to ensure higher
>  conviction rates. Why not do away with the all the unnecessary legal
>  crap and just make some Home Orifice bureaucrat judge, jury and
>  executioner instead of having to bother going through the motions so it
>  at least looks like it's a legal process?

i see tv voting on motorway security camera footage in a game show stylee
becoming the way forward.
-- 
dog
rsv1000rf sl1000 two#5 pwcram#3

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:57:44 +0000, dog wibbled forth:

> Timo Geusch wrote:
>>  I'm also always in favour of "tightening legislation to ensure higher
>>  conviction rates. Why not do away with the all the unnecessary legal
>>  crap and just make some Home Orifice bureaucrat judge, jury and
>>  executioner instead of having to bother going through the motions so
>>  it at least looks like it's a legal process?
> 
> i see tv voting on motorway security camera footage in a game show
> stylee becoming the way forward.

Its entirely possible but we're both married and it's not christmas  for 
you and you shouldn't be up so late!

Mr Walker  say s Hi :) to all

P.S. The Swedish birds were guilty :(
-- 
davethedave

Timo Geusch wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
> 
> I especially liked this part:
> 
> "They will also introduce £60 on-the-spot fines for careless drivers, and
> tighten legislation to ensure higher conviction rates for drug-driving."
> 
> On the spot fines, dished out by what plod? Or are they proposing
> cameras that can detect "funny driving" and automatically tag stick a
> fine to on your car as you drive past?
> 
> I'm also always in favour of "tightening legislation to ensure higher
> conviction rates. Why not do away with the all the unnecessary legal
> crap and just make some Home Orifice bureaucrat judge, jury and
> executioner instead of having to bother going through the motions so it
> at least looks like it's a legal process?
> 
> And no, I'm not in favour of drug-driving, drink-driving etc but I don't
> like the legal system being fiddled with to boost some fucking statistic
> or other. It's a bit too important for that sort of shit.

Your orifice is the problem, it puts a hole in your argument.


-- 
FZ1-N GS650GT Go-Ped Sport
BOMB#14 ibW#40 LotR#0 (RIP) BOTAFOT#157 BotM#3

On 28 Sep, 14:47, Timo Geusch 
wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>
> I especially liked this part:
>
> "They will also introduce £60 on-the-spot fines for careless drivers, and
> tighten legislation to ensure higher conviction rates for drug-driving."
>
> On the spot fines, dished out by what plod?

We no longer have 'Parking Attendants', which in turn superceded
'Traffic Wardens'.  We have 'Civil Enforcement Officers', something
which were introduced earlier this year as a result of the Traffic
Management Act 2004.

They have more powers than the outgoing Parking Attendants, and you
will continue to see an increase in the powers granted to both these,
PCSOs and those plastic policeman Highways Agency bods who plod along
our motorways in gay coloured 4x4s, as the screws are turned by the
Government (1).

I believe the term some are using is 'policing on the cheap'... I
personally believe there is a much deeper, far reaching 'powers that
be' agenda driving it all.

Oh, and I couldn't give a flying fuck whether or not anyone thinks I'm
paranoid in stating the above - open your eyes and look around you at
things like the general monitoring of people, be it by way of CCTV,
ANPR, card transactions, mobile communications etc.

And then consider that at present, we're not seeing the bulk of the
powers quietly put in place over the last few years being wielded to
the letter - 'anti terrorist laws' with the right of detention - the
measures that have been brought in under that can be used against
*all* of us, not just some pesky ragheads seen wearing a rucksack.

You no longer have the right the protest unless the police happen to
give you permission?

From what I've read and been told by someone who bothered to stand up
and be counted about what went on over at the Kingsnorth Power Station
protest recently, what would appear to be a very heavy handed approach
was taken by the police, with overkill in terms the manpower allocated
to 'quelling the uprising' - I believe at one point there were 1500
protestors on site, and 1500 police???

I may or may not agree with whatever they (and other groups who choose
to be vocal in society), were protesting about... but I expect any
fair and just society to allow whoever, the right to peaceful protest
within reason, and without the need for the system, so to speak, to
resort to oppressive methods such as the above in reply to it.

What about the guy aggrieved about Iraq who set up camp outside the
Houses of Parliament, and the legislation brought in as a result of
him not agreeing to go away quietly?

Whatever, the general answer to all of societies lesser ills (2)
appears at present to be by way of fining people.  And it's going to
get a lot worse, hence why you're seeing articles in the press like
the one you've posted above.

(1) And by 'Government', I mean any party that gets in - some things
will of course change, but the overall agenda with regards to how the
system treats the people within it, will carry on in the manner in
which it has been for some time, now.

(2) With what constitues an 'ill' growing constantly due to the huge
raft of extra legislation being constantly drafted in and quietly
being put into place by the Government.  It really won't be long
before you'll have a methane meter strapped to your arse and you'll be
fined for any 'harmful emissions' you emit.

--
JackH

jackhackettuk@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>  We no longer have 'Parking Attendants', which in turn superceded
>  'Traffic Wardens'.  We have 'Civil Enforcement Officers', something
>  which were introduced earlier this year as a result of the Traffic
>  Management Act 2004.

i'm going to spin for "community roadside allocation facilitators" next.
-- 
dog
rsv1000rf sl1000 two#5 pwcram#3

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:39:48 +0100, boots@despammed.com wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:47:06 +0100 in uk.rec.motorcycles, Timo Geusch
>says:
>
>>
>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>
>>And no, I'm not in favour of drug-driving, drink-driving etc but I don't
>>like the legal system being fiddled with to boost some fucking statistic
>>or other. It's a bit too important for that sort of shit.
>
>It's pretty much par for the course with the present government,
>gestures to try and get some attention form their mainly mouth
>breathing supporters.

<breathes thru mouth>

Oi!
-- 
Champ

Two standard issue crutches
To email me, neal at my domain should work.

On 30 Sep, 11:45, dog  wrote:
> jackhacket...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >  We no longer have 'Parking Attendants', which in turn superceded
> >  'Traffic Wardens'.  We have 'Civil Enforcement Officers', something
> >  which were introduced earlier this year as a result of the Traffic
> >  Management Act 2004.
>
> i'm going to spin for "community roadside allocation facilitators" next.

That's no good - the acronym that goes with it doesn't spell 'CUNTS'.

--
JackH