Discussion in 'Serious' started by hellblazer.doom, 9 Jan 2011.
Seriously? That's so stupid, those speed cameras are stupid! Cause more accidents than theyre worth
yeah used to run a fuzzbuster in my truck.. it picked up laser too- put the eye in the grill and wired it back to the dash
man that thing saved my ass plenty of times beep beep beeep beeeep beeeep then you see the cop 7 miles down the road sitting behind a bridge.. totally worth every penny- pays for itself 10 times over in the first year if you travel a lot
So basically it allowed you to avoid punishment for something you know to be illegal? Unless you disagree with speed limits this would seem analogous to having a police detector which detects police coming onto the street which has the house your burgling at any given moment.
Or maybe you could drive more considerately?
Alas, as you know very little of me (actually nothing) you can't make the judgements. I'm usually the one being politically incorrect. You on the other hand sir, are a douche-bag who should promtly be banned from breathing oxygen of humanity. Have a nice day.
Back on topic: So the guy is appealing with MP's backing him? Hows this going to work out if there is already a law there...
I believe quite a few laws get changed like that. A guy breaks it, gets done for it, huge public outcry and then the law gets looked into. Now if laws were based on common sense....
MP's like positive press the driver is easiest case to support, the much trumpeted "war on the motorist" means that any politicians coming down on the side of the driver must be a good guy... to Daily Mail readers.
He will of course be abandoned by said MPs as soon as the whip tells them to or if the judge throws the appeal out or more likely when the media interest in the story wanes.
If laws were based on common sense we'd have no legal system. But everyone has different level's of common sense, and opinion makes up far to much of that.
i.e. common sense for me says that rapists should be tortured, while others might think that's barbaric and their common sense says they should be set free to frolick amongst insanity...
I've never really seen "the war on motorists" I know how annoying it can be with speed camera's (I'll admit to the fact I like driving fast).
I doubt a judge will throw the case out of something a few MP's are involved in, they'll be stood on from a great height with a great weight to do something about it. Hopefully it'll come about that all speed camera's are illegal and the traffic speed on motorways becomes unlimited (But crash and you'll get your backdoors ragged off by the courts... just like Germany).
Fair point but some common sense needs to be injected in somewhere, like in this case the bloke should of been told off and sent on his way but instead its going to drag on and on, no doubt costing the tax payer.
I swear coppers should be recruited on common sense levels primarily, i have actually met quite a few that have and are some of the best people i know but some are just unbelievable and will follow the law to the letter which just doesn't really work.
Personally nor have I driving is cheaper now than it was 20 years ago but still people complain about their given right to drive.
Judges are well aware the court system must work with but separately from the legislative. If the government were pressing on the Judge or were in fact at all interested they could just change the law. A few MPs I'm afraid carry little real weight with the courts.
Four words: Judge Dredd! OH NIH!
I doubt it's cheaper chap, look at the price of fuel... I'm going to buying a quad-bike soon simply because the fuel and insurance are nearly 1/3 that of a car! the road tax is £35 a year, the fuel is £40 a month, if I bought a decent car it'd be 3 times that obviously (from what I said lol)... it's madness and not everyone can afford that.
Changing a law doesn't seem as simple as it should be mind.
The cost of fuel and the purchase prices of cars tends not to track with inflation so in real terms the cost of motoring is lower. Put it this way despite the huge cost of fuel people spend less on transport as a percentage of their take home pay than they did 20 years ago.
Simple fact is if you can't afford a car don't have one, there is no give right to drive. As you point out there are alternatives your quad looks like a sensible way to go, cities all have adequate public transport or there is always a bike pedal or motored.
Changing the law is fairly simple the government decides to change it and there is a vote, if there is sufficient will it is changed. One chaps act of stupidity/heroism will not garner sufficient will to have a law as significant as the Police Act changed, simple fact is not enough people really care.
It's true mate, it's more the taxation on the fuel in the UK that's insane. It's £1.25 a litre now, remember when those truckers blockaded the refinaries for 25p less? but there again, if they did that now, they'd all be arrested under terrorism laws right? >.<
It's true mate, but at the same time a car/personal transport is so required in this day and age (especially at my ripe old age of 22... i'm popular shut it ) but it isn't a god-given right. I don't mind grabbing the peasent-wagon (bus) to work, gives me time to wakeup and enjoy another novel of how Space Marines come and stove a bloody big axe through an Ork's head. It's true mate, I need a quad because my workplace is 15 miles from home, plus I'm a little bit of an adrenaline junkie and don't really get on well with cars since driving tanks >.<
Not enough people dare challenge it aswell, thats how I feel anyway. As I said now, if you dare voice a different tune to the government in most ways they can get you under any of the stupid laws they brought in against our will in the past ten years, the terrorism act for example...
It is common sense that is the problem in British laws, not the solution. Throughout our legal systems you have catch-all laws which can basically be used for just about anything the CPS or procurator fiscal are cheeky enough to try their hands at pushing. Laws which exist because "Well it was obvious suspect X was doing/about to do crime Y, but the current laws don't let us prosecute him, lets just make it so if its obvious to everyone he's being a bad guy we can throw him in the clink".
That seems to be the way the CPS, procurator fiscal, and police forces work. Now that doesn't surprise me, you can't expect lawyers and police officers to be moral experts, in the first case they're just not educated towards morality and in the second they're often just not educated. But the judiciary, well they should be geared up towards a moral stance, and it's them who is really failing our country. This is something the Americans are rather good at.
I'm not meaning to drag this debate OT, but after the shooting in Arizona lots of people in the UK press seemed to expect a "common sense" change of gun laws over there - but the US, at least foundationally, bases its laws on reasoned moral and philosophical standpoints, and as such does not change laws every time the weather changes just because it appears to be common sense. Actions of individuals do not change morality of laws. Many Americans realise this. Far too few Brits do.
A little more regard for the laws put in place by our own forefathers here in the UK and a little less regard for what anyone who wants to change laws says would be very, very precious.
Could you honestly contemplate how crazy it would be to re-write all our laws from scratch? Things are so "accepted" as right and wrong with us, that to do such a thing would just be a mind screw.
The Founding Fathers did it. I'm sure things were very accepted as right and wrong back then with your average person, too.
British laws are becoming more and more immoral. More about catching criminals than observing the fine line between moral and immoral. If you have to punish someone for committing a moral act, to prevent someone else doing something immoral, that's fine now in the UK. That precedent will be carried forward into extremity - and hopefully people will start to resent the immorality of the system. Otherwise, simply learn your newspeak and work on being accommodating.
You do realise you said the "m" word and Nexxo is going to have to pick up his smash hammer right?
Second thing: I do see what you mean. I'm just, probably a little more un-tuned but I know people would demand some out-rageous laws be created and destroyed and it would never go as simply as we would like it to. Heck it'd probably end up being illegal to own a red mug... because 4chan got involved.
That's treading an even thinner line, preventing someone from doing something illegal/immoral or warn them so they commit their illegal act when police aren't about?
is it wrong to tell someone that the police are not about and so they can commit a crime?
Legally it is as apparent in this thread (can't find the quote right now)
In this case... it's just pointless if you ask me.
Separate names with a comma.