[I]C(aught)ourt again.
GaryN
talking on a mobile, turning out to be 2 points over the limit on a
blood test (possibly a false positive aided by morphine) and getting
banned from driving for 3 years I've now had the following:-
a)Get subjected to a Drink Incapacitated Drivers Course (DIDS) which I
got thrown off for:-
1)Asking awkward questions which the tutors didn't know the answers to.
2)Pointing out the errors in course material.
3)Calling the course director a fat, stupid, ugly, ignorant bitch[1]
b)Had to pay back every penny of Incap benefit out of the insurance
payout that took a year to arrive.
c)Following getting thrown off DIDS course had to agree to curfew
arrangement.
Which is where it gets to be fun. I'm in court tomorrow for
"Interfering with the tagging devices" - and I'm still on an 80 day
suspended wot is slightly problematic.
Except that the problem appears to be that the house wireless network
conflicts with the signals from the base unit to the tag, and so do the
signals from the wireless networks in the houses on either side.
I could get banged up for 3 months because my neighbours use wireless
networking!
Sorely tempted to break out an SMLE from the cache and do some .303 re-
education at G4S in Swindon.
And if you don't hear from me tomorrow I'll see Y'All in 3 months...
gary.
[1]Oddly nobody argued with this!
Larry Moore
It sound like you are the victim of a series of unfortunate events
or as Bujold puts it 'one damn thing after another'.
--
"The world, in truth, is a wedding." - Erving Goffman
SeekUp
"Larry Moore" <ljm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote >
> It sound like you are the victim of a series of unfortunate events
> or as Bujold puts it 'one damn thing after another'.
...started by drinking and driving, and after that showing only belligerence
and aggression? Sorry Gary, but it seems to me you need a change of
attitude.
Reader in Invisible Writings
his motorcycle.
Over the limit, but blames the other party in the accident.
Unacceptable behaviour in the driver/rider improvement course.
(Probably thrown off just for the insulting behaviour as nobody deserves
to have others attempt to humiliate them and there are policies about
this in most public services)
Said they could not answer his questions, this normally means "they did
not give the answer he considered correct", I constantly have this in my
line of work.
When further penalised he threatens murder against a random individual
who, if he even knew with person to shoot at, does not have the
discresion to set aside the law on the basis that "it's just unfair,
don't you know that motorcyclists can have more alcohol in their blood
because the fresh air and adrenaline compensate" or some similar view.
He probably thinks that the speed he thinks is safe, must be safe and so
the speed limits are wrong and motorcycles need to be powerful to get
you out of trouble and ....
--
Reader in Invisible Writings.. Something to Ponder upon!
RuneMaster
> Following the wonderful world of being wiped off the bike by an idiot
> talking on a mobile, turning out to be 2 points over the limit on a
> blood test (possibly a false positive aided by morphine) and getting
> banned from driving for 3 years I've now had the following:-
>
As a biker since 1973, still running my Bonneville [1] and survivng a few
spills, I do have sympathy with a "bro" being totalled by a no-brainer
(was he in a Volvo by any chance?) busily engaged in frying his already
atrophied brain.
You did not say what the Fuzz did to the said idiot. Can you consider a
claim for damages on the grounds of "driving without due care & attention"
or does your over-the-limit issue over-ride HIS criminal actions?
Whilst not condoning, encouraging or inciting any illegal activity
whatsoever, if you have said idiot's name, address & insurance details, it
would *really* be a shame if anything untoward were to happen to him, his
car or property.
[1] a Genuine Historical Vehicle, no Road Tax to pay!!
--
-
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilised community, against [their] will is to prevent harm
to others. [Their] own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient
warrant"
John Stuart Mill, 'On Liberty' 1859
Lesley Weston
> On 2008-04-28, GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
<snip sad story involving imminent court appearance>
>>
>> And if you don't hear from me tomorrow I'll see Y'All in 3 months...
>>
>> gary.
>>
>> [1]Oddly nobody argued with this!
>>
>
> It sound like you are the victim of a series of unfortunate events
> or as Bujold puts it 'one damn thing after another'.
>
>
Indeed! I would say "Break a leg", but it seems he has already done so,
so "Good luck" might be better. Or it might be too late already - he
doesn't seem to have posted today.
--
Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long
time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
GaryN
news:48175...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com:
> SeekUp wrote:
>> "Larry Moore" <ljm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote >
>>> It sound like you are the victim of a series of unfortunate events
>>> or as Bujold puts it 'one damn thing after another'.
>>
>>
>> ...started by drinking and driving, and after that showing only
>> belligerence and aggression? Sorry Gary, but it seems to me you need
>> a change of attitude.
>>
>>
> Agreed, on the basis of his own evidence he is probably unfit to ride
> his motorcycle.
> Over the limit, but blames the other party in the accident.
Actually only 82mg on a limit of 80mg in 100ml, with the possibility that
the morphine given by paramedics may have caused false positive on the
blood test.
We're not talking "raging drunk" here - just slightly over. If you drive
first thing in the morning after a night out (assuming that you drink
alcohol) you are probably equally far over, if not more.
> Unacceptable behaviour in the driver/rider improvement course.
> (Probably thrown off just for the insulting behaviour as nobody
> deserves to have others attempt to humiliate them and there are
> policies about this in most public services)
I was accused of misogyny because I questioned (politely) female tutors on
the validity of their information. Given that there were no male tutors, I
had little choice (but misogyny is always a nicely evocative term
dontcherknow). The row with the course director was outside the actual
course.
Apparently "Disruptive behaviour" is asking questions that they don't know
the answers to. You (for a given value of "you") wouldn't allow these
people to teach your child in Primary School. Not if you wanted them to
get educated anyway.
> Said they could not answer his questions, this normally means "they
> did not give the answer he considered correct", I constantly have this
> in my line of work.
Nope - I didn't give the answers they claimed to be correct. I pointed out
their errors. More "Disruptive behaviour".
> When further penalised he threatens murder against a random individual
Murder? Don't think I said that at all. I'm a good enough marksman to
just cause a crippling injury and a good enough investigator to ensure it's
the right person...
> who, if he even knew with person to shoot at, does not have the
> discresion
Or possibly discretion? I can spell in English - maybe you should learn
the language?
> to set aside the law on the basis that "it's just unfair,
> don't you know that motorcyclists can have more alcohol in their blood
> because the fresh air and adrenaline compensate" or some similar view.
Nope, not my view at all. You seem to be happy to read in a lot of things
that I didn't say.
Yet you ignore the actual point of the post, which was the problem with
electronic tagging and wireless networking interference.
> He probably thinks that the speed he thinks is safe, must be safe and
> so the speed limits are wrong and motorcycles need to be powerful to
> get you out of trouble and ....
I was doing 25mph in the correct lane on a (30mph limit) roundabout and
signalling my intent. The individual who hit me was doing at least 40mph,
talking on a mobile (statements by 3 independent witnesses including her
passenger) and attempting to manouver across my path from the wrong lane
for the exit she was attempting to take. Sideswiped the front end of the
bike whilst accelerating from behind me.
Oh, and she hadn't bothered indicating.
But, of course, that was all my fault. How stupid of me not to realise.
Probably predjudiced by being crippled by an idiot, patronised and insulted
by the courts and probation service, and then taken the piss out of by the
DSS when I finally got the 10K insurance payout.
gary
GaryN
news:opuad3n8j9sm6eg8@acer-laptop:
> On 28 Apr 2008 14:25:37 GMT, GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>
>> Following the wonderful world of being wiped off the bike by an idiot
>> talking on a mobile, turning out to be 2 points over the limit on a
>> blood test (possibly a false positive aided by morphine) and getting
>> banned from driving for 3 years I've now had the following:-
>>
>
> As a biker since 1973, still running my Bonneville [1] and survivng a
> few spills, I do have sympathy with a "bro" being totalled by a
> no-brainer (was he in a Volvo by any chance?) busily engaged in
> frying his already atrophied brain.
It could have been worse - 6 inches to the right and my forehead would
have hit a concrete lane divider at 30mph. Isn't any brain bucket that
can stand that, although the broken neck makes it an academic point.
> You did not say what the Fuzz did to the said idiot. Can you consider
> a claim for damages on the grounds of "driving without due care &
> attention" or does your over-the-limit issue over-ride HIS criminal
> actions?
Fuzz action (this is good):
Action on scene - ignore multiple witnesses wanting to give statements.
Take statement from driver of car that hit me, take statement from woman
who says "I didn't see what happened I just stopped to help"
2 blokes stepped into the outside lane of the Oxford ringroad, putting
themselves at risk, to lift the bike off my leg so that I could elbow
myself clear, a young lady with them called my GF. All of them
attempted to give statements and were told that it wasn't necessary.
30 hours after I was released from 16 days in hospital a copper turned
up at my place and asked if I could come to the station and make a
statement. Only after I struggled out and got in the car did he say
"I'm arresting you for..."
Walking on crutches and with leg in cast at the time.
>
> Whilst not condoning, encouraging or inciting any illegal activity
> whatsoever, if you have said idiot's name, address & insurance
> details, it would *really* be a shame if anything untoward were to
> happen to him, his car or property.
Could do that but - nah.
> [1] a Genuine Historical Vehicle, no Road Tax to pay!!
I did have a Triton for a while some years back - and what is this "Road
Tax" of which you speak....;-)
gary
SeekUp
> You did not say what the Fuzz did to the said idiot. Can you consider a
> claim for damages on the grounds of "driving without due care & attention"
> or does your over-the-limit issue over-ride HIS criminal actions?
> Whilst not condoning, encouraging or inciting any illegal activity
> whatsoever, if you have said idiot's name, address & insurance details, it
> would *really* be a shame if anything untoward were to happen to him, his
> car or property.
Is there really no faith in the legal justice system? (I assumed events had
taken place in the UK?) I'm horrified by GaryN and RuneMaster thinking that
vigilantism is an acceptable way to deal with their own frustrations.
Not cool.
Jeff Howell
> Reader in Invisible Writings <markfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:48175...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com:
>> to set aside the law on the basis that "it's just unfair,
>> don't you know that motorcyclists can have more alcohol in their blood
>> because the fresh air and adrenaline compensate" or some similar view.
>
> Nope, not my view at all. You seem to be happy to read in a lot of things
> that I didn't say.
May I draw your attention to the name 'Reader in *Invisible* Writings'?
--
Jeff
GaryN
news:XvSdnQvW-ft6gIXV...@saix.net:
> "RuneMaster" <jonatha...@elspace.org> wrote
>
>> You did not say what the Fuzz did to the said idiot. Can you
>> consider a claim for damages on the grounds of "driving without due
>> care & attention" or does your over-the-limit issue over-ride HIS
>> criminal actions?
>
>> Whilst not condoning, encouraging or inciting any illegal activity
>> whatsoever, if you have said idiot's name, address & insurance
>> details, it would *really* be a shame if anything untoward were to
>> happen to him, his car or property.
>
> Is there really no faith in the legal justice system? (I assumed
> events had taken place in the UK?)
No faith in a justice system that lets offenders out early, fails to
ensure that deportees actually leave, and then pursues me because my
neighbours wireless networks interfere with the electronic tagging
system that I'm subjected to because I knew more about the subject than
the tutors on a course?
Can't imagine why you might think that!
Or are we talking about the justice system that reduced my compensation
payment after a violent assault by a gang which left me permanently
scarred, because "10 years ago we found that you had a (technically
legal) knife on your way home from a job that involved opening a lot of
packaging"
Obviously that old conviction really reduced the extent of my injuries!
The best of it was that the area where the assault ocurred was
(supposedly) covered by multiple CCTV cameras but "They were all
pointing the wrong way" so no-one was ever arrested.
> I'm horrified by GaryN and
> RuneMaster thinking that vigilantism is an acceptable way to deal with
> their own frustrations. Not cool.
Clearly sarcasm and 'exaggeration for effect' were not on the syllabus
during your schooling...:-)
gary
John Wilkins
He didn't see it, for some reason.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Daniel Orner
Gary
news:1ig8fvw.1frh75bvtucm5N%j.wil...@uq.edu.au:
> Jeff Howell <notan...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> GaryN wrote:
>> > Reader in Invisible Writings <markfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> > news:48175...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com:
>> <snip>
>> >> to set aside the law on the basis that "it's just unfair,
>> >> don't you know that motorcyclists can have more alcohol in their
>> >> blood because the fresh air and adrenaline compensate" or some
>> >> similar view.
>> >
>> > Nope, not my view at all. You seem to be happy to read in a lot of
>> > things that I didn't say.
>>
>> May I draw your attention to the name 'Reader in *Invisible*
>> Writings'?
>
> He didn't see it, for some reason.
Forgot to put on my invisible reading glasses..:-(
gary
Eric Jarvis
ga...@scaryriders.com says...
I can never find mine. I know I put them down here somewhere, but for the
life of me I can't see them anywhere.
--
eric
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Reader in Invisible Writings
the typo) in my response. What fired me up (no pun intended) was the
reference to the illegal use of a firearm. Coming from a family who
have been involved in the 'shooting game' for over 60 years and am aware
how any lose talk is used against the sport. I grew up with the adage
"Never point guns at people, even if they are toys." so your "Sorely
I did not realise the WiFi interference with the Tag was the hub of the
tale.
You should have mentioned the mobile phone as this is something which
would put me right alongside you as that is the most obnoxious piece of
driver (self justifying) dangerous behaviour there is, up there with
drink driving and exceeding the speed limit "because I know I'm safe".
Possibly you could ask me your questions and I will see what answers I have?
I obviously overstepped the extrapolation of your comments, but the
phraseology struck me as similar to that used by various car-centric
groups who purport to have undeniable facts, because they believe them
no matter the evidence.
Yours a cyclist and driver.
Oh and I agree the way the DSS takes money back from compensation/payout
sucks unless part of the award was for the loss of earnings that the DSS
paid (in their eyes loaned you) for. Also 10K implies that the Civil
Courts supported you, or maybe it was your own insurance rather than the
driver's. Finally, always get witness details, never trust others to do so!
GaryN
<snip>
> Right, first I apologise for my lack of discretion (this time without
> the typo) in my response.
Apology accepted. May I offer my own apology for taking you to task on
an obvious typo.
> What fired me up (no pun intended) was the
> reference to the illegal use of a firearm. Coming from a family who
> have been involved in the 'shooting game' for over 60 years and am
> aware how any lose talk is used against the sport. I grew up with the
> adage "Never point guns at people, even if they are toys." so your
> "Sorely tempted to break out an SMLE from the cache and do some .303
> re- education at G4S in Swindon." was a red rag.
It was exagerration for effect, fuelled by sheer frustration, rather
than a stated intent. I was taught to shoot by my grandfather (3
consecutive years British army rifle champion) and my mother (2 years
Kent ladies smallbore champion, National ladies smallbore champion 1
year) and before I was allowed to pick up even an air rifle it was
drummed into me that you:
a)Check the state of load of any weapon the moment you lay hands on it -
regardless of who gave it to you and what they told you.
b)Never, ever, point a weapon at anything or anyone that you do not
intend to kill, regardless of the state of load.
I shoot less now that I live in Oxford but I still manage a range day at
Bisley once or twice a year with friends, and some game shooting up in
Lincolnshire when I visit family.
> I did not realise the WiFi interference with the Tag was the hub of
> the tale.
It was perhaps a bit lost in the general rant - I wasn't a happy bunny
at the prospect of being locked up for someone else's incompetence. In
this case G4S - if the monitoring equipment can be interfered with by
WiFi then it is surely unfit for purpose?
<snip>
> I obviously overstepped the extrapolation of your comments, but the
> phraseology struck me as similar to that used by various car-centric
> groups who purport to have undeniable facts, because they believe them
> no matter the evidence.
I've never been of that persuasion. When I'm wrong I admit it. I've
done some bloody stupidly dangerous things on motorcycles over the years
but in this case I was actually in the right.
> Oh and I agree the way the DSS takes money back from
> compensation/payout sucks unless part of the award was for the loss of
> earnings that the DSS paid (in their eyes loaned you) for.
Well the DSS paid for 12 months but the contract I was due to start was
only due to run for 6. Didn't stop them wanting it all back.
> Also 10K
> implies that the Civil Courts supported you, or maybe it was your own
> insurance rather than the driver's.
Her insurance - having witnesses testify to her getting out of the car
in hysterics screaming "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, it was my fault" helped.
> Finally, always get witness
> details, never trust others to do so!
Unfortunately this wasn't an option. The pain of having everything
below the right knee broken put me out and I didn't regain proper
consciousness until 3 days later thanks to the hospital giving me a drug
that I'm violently allergic to (stark naked trying to climb out of a 3rd
floor window having torn a plaster cast from a multiply fractured leg
with my bare hands is *not* something I wish to repeat - or, indeed,
remember any more clearly than I can) I've got bits from those 3 days
but I can't trust any of the memories. The psychotic episodes brought on
by the medication are actually clearer memories than the rest of the 16
days.
The witnesses I did get were the guys who lifted the bike off me (at
which point I was conscious enough to elbow myself to the curb, although
I only remember it hazily) who put a business card in my pocket, and the
girl who phoned my GF and gave her number.
gary
RuneMaster
> RuneMaster <jonatha...@elspace.org> wrote in
> news:opuad3n8j9sm6eg8@acer-laptop:
>
>> On 28 Apr 2008 14:25:37 GMT, GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>>
<much edited>
>
>
> I did have a Triton for a while some years back - and what is this "Road
> Tax" of which you speak....;-)
>
In the UK, Road Tax, or more accuately Vehicle Excise Duty, was introduced
in 1920 as a way to collect money from the drivers of mechanically driven
vehicles (i.e. those with motors, not animals) to use in road maintenance,
improvements etc. (Wikipedia has a good article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_excise_duty
--
Do you know how to cut them, do you know how to read them?
Do you know how to stain them, do you know how to prove them?
Do you know how to evoke them, do you know how to score them?
Do you know how to send them, do you know how to spend them?
Hávamál, Stanza 145
RuneMaster
<webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
> SeekUp wrote:
>> Is there really no faith in the legal justice system? (I assumed
>> events had taken place in the UK?) I'm horrified by GaryN and
>> RuneMaster thinking that vigilantism is an acceptable way to deal with
>> their own frustrations.
>> Not cool.
>>
> Seconded, with extra disapproval.
To answer the question, NO, I have very little faith in the English legal
system. If you are very poor, you can qualify for Legal Aid, and persue
your claim at the taxpayers' expense.
If you are very rich, you can aford to do the same.
The vast majority of the population, however, (house-owners, wage slaves
with families,mortgages etc) are too well-off to get legal aid [1], and
far too strapped for cash to afford the tens of thousands of pounds legal
action would cost.
Add to the mix a Police force lumbered (by the target-obsessed Government)
with excessive paperwork, and a Court system which seems almost designed
to cosset the criminal, and ignore the victim, and there you have it!
The issue is not my "own frustations" , but rather the point about having
people bear responsibility for their actions. The legal system is clearly
failing to deter law-breakers, so (philosophically speaking) if Joe Public
came to realise that dangerous behaviour causing injury in another person
COULD result in them being personally injured in return, perhaps they
would moderate their actions before such an incident happened.
I know this is close to the old system of feuds, but the key issue is that
far too many car-drivers simply do not pay sufficient attention to what
they are doing, which is being in charge of a massive and deadly weapon.
[1] but how Kevin Maxwell and his brother qualified for Legal Aid when
they, with their father, had embezzled vast sums from the Maxwell
companies remains a mystery!
Len Oil
> On 30 Apr 2008 01:01:29 GMT, GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>
>> RuneMaster <jonatha...@elspace.org> wrote in
>> news:opuad3n8j9sm6eg8@acer-laptop:
>> Tax" of which you speak....;-)
>>
>
> In the UK, Road Tax, or more accuately Vehicle Excise Duty, was
> introduced in 1920 as a way to collect money from the drivers of
> mechanically driven vehicles (i.e. those with motors, not animals) to
> use in road maintenance, improvements etc. (Wikipedia has a good article
> here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_excise_duty
I believe you missed the intent behind RM's smiley, indicating inclusion
within the category explained by in that very article by:
<wiki>Also note that vehicles constructed before 1 January 1973 are
eligible for a free vehicle licence under the "Historic Vehicles"
legislation. [...]</wiki>
Eric Jarvis
says...
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:52:03 -0400, Daniel Orner
> <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>
> > SeekUp wrote:
> >> Is there really no faith in the legal justice system? (I assumed
> >> events had taken place in the UK?) I'm horrified by GaryN and
> >> RuneMaster thinking that vigilantism is an acceptable way to deal with
> >> their own frustrations.
> >> Not cool.
> >>
> > Seconded, with extra disapproval.
>
> To answer the question, NO, I have very little faith in the English legal
> system. If you are very poor, you can qualify for Legal Aid, and persue
> your claim at the taxpayers' expense.
>
Not any more. If you are poor you can qualify for legal aid, and then
have to make monthly cash payments in the bank specified by the Legal Aid
Commission, whilst any large organisation you may be engaged in legal
action against will simply delay as long as possible in the hope that you
will eventually give up.
> If you are very rich, you can aford to do the same.
>
> The vast majority of the population, however, (house-owners, wage slaves
> with families,mortgages etc) are too well-off to get legal aid [1], and
> far too strapped for cash to afford the tens of thousands of pounds legal
> action would cost.
>
This is true however.
Basically there is currently no justice unless you are wealthy or
extremely determined.
> Add to the mix a Police force lumbered (by the target-obsessed Government)
> with excessive paperwork, and a Court system which seems almost designed
> to cosset the criminal, and ignore the victim, and there you have it!
>
The court system is not designed to cosset the criminal. That is a
fiction often spouted by the media and those who pick up on it without
thinking. The court system is designed to treat everybody as innocent
until proven guilty. That means until a court has delivered a verdict,
not simply when a journalist has decided either that "they are obviously
a wrong un" or that "they would never have been arrested if they weren't
guilty".
However it's true that the victim is largely ignored by the system. In
theory there have been changes to improve matters, but in practise
there's little pressure to actually do anything about it because all the
attention goes on looking for ways to punish the criminal even when no
crime has yet been established as having happened.
> The issue is not my "own frustations" , but rather the point about having
> people bear responsibility for their actions. The legal system is clearly
> failing to deter law-breakers, so (philosophically speaking) if Joe Public
> came to realise that dangerous behaviour causing injury in another person
> COULD result in them being personally injured in return, perhaps they
> would moderate their actions before such an incident happened.
>
It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. It's been tried. It's not as
if you are the first person to have the idea. There is a mass of research
out there, most of which confirms the obvious, most law-breakers are
irresponsible or stupid. You won't alter the behaviour of the
irresponsible or stupid by doing anything that requires them to be
responsible and intelligent in the first place.
> I know this is close to the old system of feuds, but the key issue is that
> far too many car-drivers simply do not pay sufficient attention to what
> they are doing, which is being in charge of a massive and deadly weapon.
>
True. However the answer is not action against the few who have caused an
accident. The answer is to change the behaviour of all drivers before
they cause an accident.
The trouble is that we humming beans are wired up to deal with this sort
of thing by categorising bad drivers as "them" and looking for solutions
that punish "them" without affecting "us". The trouble is there is no
"them" and "us". All drivers are capable of inattention whilst driving.
Those who are most certain that they never let their attention wander and
thus always drive perfectly are at least likely to be a dangerous driver
as those who assume they are liable to make mistakes. So most of "them"
assume they are "us".
>
> [1] but how Kevin Maxwell and his brother qualified for Legal Aid when
> they, with their father, had embezzled vast sums from the Maxwell
> companies remains a mystery!
>
They did it by signing on the dole after ensuring that they had next to
no easily convertible assets. Some of their assets were also frozen by
the court. You can't have it both ways, freezing the assets of somebody
accused of fraud and then demanding they use them to pay for their legal
defence. The second time Kevin Maxwell was tried for fraud his assets
weren't frozen and legal aid wasn't granted.
Unfortunately the Maxwell case has been consistently used as an example
to show a "need" to make legal aid more difficult to obtain. Naturally
all the changes that have resulted make absolutely no difference to the
wealthy, but serve to make justice less available to the poor.
Daniel Orner
Even if you *don't* have faith in the justice system, that's no excuse
to go around meting out your own justice.
GaryN
news:fvcftb$ukh$1...@mud.stack.nl:
<possibly excessive snippetry>
>Even if you *don't* have faith in the justice system, that's no excuse
> to go around meting out your own justice.
But the justice meted out by the system is supposed to *be* our justice.
It's called a Democracy.
If the system fails to deliver, particularly when I didn't vote for the
present (Bloody Scottish) incumbents, then occasionally extra-ordinary
measures may become necessary.
Would you argue against an upstanding citizen who beat up a drug dealer
selling at the gates of your children's school?
gary
GaryN
news:fvbb81$i7c$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk:
> RuneMaster wrote:
>> On 30 Apr 2008 01:01:29 GMT, GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>>
>>> RuneMaster <jonatha...@elspace.org> wrote in
>>> news:opuad3n8j9sm6eg8@acer-laptop:
>>> I did have a Triton for a while some years back - and what is this
>>> "Road Tax" of which you speak....;-)
>>>
>>
>> In the UK, Road Tax, or more accuately Vehicle Excise Duty, was
>> introduced in 1920 as a way to collect money from the drivers of
>> mechanically driven vehicles (i.e. those with motors, not animals) to
>> use in road maintenance, improvements etc. (Wikipedia has a good
>> article here:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_excise_duty
>
> I believe you missed the intent behind RM's smiley, indicating
> inclusion within the category explained by in that very article by:
Possibly my smiley rather than RM's?
> <wiki>Also note that vehicles constructed before 1 January 1973 are
> eligible for a free vehicle licence under the "Historic Vehicles"
> legislation. [...]</wiki>
I'll start paying it when they actually start using it to improve the
roads.
gary
Daniel Orner
Yes, I would. Absolutely I would. No one has the *right* to use
violence against anyone else, and absolutely no one has the all-seeing
know-it-allness to decide who does or does not deserve to get beat up.
Arthur Hagen
Most definitely. If doing that, you have proven that you aren't an
upstanding citizen, but a mere vigilante. An upstanding citizen would go to
the police, and not give up until the police took action to uphold the law.
--
*Art
Len Oil
> Len Oil <len...@lenoil.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:fvbb81$i7c$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk:
>
>> RuneMaster wrote:
>>> On 30 Apr 2008 01:01:29 GMT, GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> RuneMaster <jonatha...@elspace.org> wrote in
>>>> news:opuad3n8j9sm6eg8@acer-laptop:
>>>> I did have a Triton for a while some years back - and what is this
>>>> "Road Tax" of which you speak....;-)
>>>>
>>> In the UK, Road Tax, or more accuately Vehicle Excise Duty, was
>>> introduced in 1920 as a way to collect money from the drivers of
>>> mechanically driven vehicles (i.e. those with motors, not animals) to
>>> use in road maintenance, improvements etc. (Wikipedia has a good
>>> article here:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_excise_duty
>> I believe you missed the intent behind RM's smiley, indicating
>> inclusion within the category explained by in that very article by:
>
> Possibly my smiley rather than RM's?
Ah yes, I failed the logic check when I messed up the attributions. ;)
Bri Tze
> Len Oil <len...@lenoil.demon.co.uk> wrote innews:fvbb81$i7c$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk:
>
>
>
>
>
> > RuneMaster wrote:
> >> On 30 Apr 2008 01:01:29 GMT, GaryN <g...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>
> >>> RuneMaster <jonathannos...@elspace.org> wrote in
> >>>news:opuad3n8j9sm6eg8@acer-laptop:
> >>> I did have a Triton for a while some years back - and what is this
> >>> "Road Tax" of which you speak....;-)
>
> >> In the UK, Road Tax, or more accuately Vehicle Excise Duty, was
> >> introduced in 1920 as a way to collect money from the drivers of
> >> mechanically driven vehicles (i.e. those with motors, not animals) to
> >> use in road maintenance, improvements etc. (Wikipedia has a good
> >> article here:
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_excise_duty
>
> > I believe you missed the intent behind RM's smiley, indicating
> > inclusion within the category explained by in that very article by:
>
> Possibly my smiley rather than RM's?
>
> > <wiki>Also note that vehicles constructed before 1 January 1973 are
> > eligible for a free vehicle licence under the "Historic Vehicles"
> > legislation. [...]</wiki>
>
> I'll start paying it when they actually start using it to improve the
> roads.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can't we have them prosecuted for misappropriation?
Bri Tze
Eric Jarvis
ga...@scaryriders.com says...
>
> Would you argue against an upstanding citizen who beat up a drug dealer
> selling at the gates of your children's school?
>
No. Because anyone who beats up anyone else is not an upstanding citizen.
They are a violent criminal. I wouldn't argue. I would take notes and
then pass it on to the police as a witness statement regarding a violent
crime (plus if I'd seen the dealer selling at the school gates I'd shop
them too).
peachy ashie passion
yes.
GaryN
Tell that to Robert Mugabe, or George Bush (either of them), or Hitler,
or Stalin, or......the list goes on.
A great many people find that the ability to do it gives them the right,
largely because anyone disagreeing gets beaten up. I personally do not
agree that this should be the case but I'm enough of a realist to
recognise the situation.
Also by that argument no magistrate has the right or
all-seeing-know-it-allness to sentence anyone to anything.
At some point a decision has to be made. It may be ill-considered
(vigilante action), ill-informed (a lot of magistrates[1]) or
target-orientated (a lot of coppers) but someone makes a decision.
gary
[1]It may come as a surprise but many magistrates actually have very
little grasp of the technicalities of the law. The power behind the
throne is the Clerk of the Court who advises the maggies on legality.
Robert Carnegie
> Reader in Invisible Writings <markfowera...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:fvai4j$lke$1...@aioe.org:
> > I did not realise the WiFi interference with the Tag was the hub of
> > the tale.
>
> It was perhaps a bit lost in the general rant - I wasn't a happy bunny
> at the prospect of being locked up for someone else's incompetence. In
> this case G4S - if the monitoring equipment can be interfered with by
> WiFi then it is surely unfit for purpose?
Maybe the monitoring equipment /is/ "WiFi" - I don't know. In that
case, another installation in the same house could interfere - a
neighbour, much less likely, I think. On the other hand - how much of
the time does 802.11# transmit, anyway? I thought it sat listening
most of the time. It's described as basically Ethernet cable without
the cable. And I think there was talk of Bluetooth and wireless
network conflicting, and older equipment may do that.
I think this boils down to various electronic device categories that
could interfere with your curfew machine, but surely the conclusion is
that you cannot use those devices. Yoo see what the alternative is.
Outside chance too that someone close to you is operating WiFi with
illegal signal strength - hacked and over-boosted - or just using
radio frequencies that are not permitted for that use in the UK. That
could be an issue with grey import equipment.
Or they have a curfew box of their own...
Or they're trying to get rid of you...
Daniel Orner
> Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote in
> news:fvd2qu$1h0r$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
>> GaryN wrote:
>>> Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote in
>>> news:fvcftb$ukh$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>>>
>>> <possibly excessive snippetry>
>>>> Even if you *don't* have faith in the justice system, that's no
>>>> excuse to go around meting out your own justice.
>>> But the justice meted out by the system is supposed to *be* our
>>> justice.
>>>
>>> It's called a Democracy.
>>>
>>> If the system fails to deliver, particularly when I didn't vote for
>>> the present (Bloody Scottish) incumbents, then occasionally
>>> extra-ordinary measures may become necessary.
>>>
>>> Would you argue against an upstanding citizen who beat up a drug
>>> dealer selling at the gates of your children's school?
>>>
>>> gary
>>>
>> Yes, I would. Absolutely I would. No one has the *right* to use
>> violence against anyone else, and absolutely no one has the all-seeing
>> know-it-allness to decide who does or does not deserve to get beat up.
>
> Tell that to Robert Mugabe, or George Bush (either of them), or Hitler,
> or Stalin, or......the list goes on.
I would, but they'd probably not take to it very well. And many of them
are dead, so I'd look pretty silly doing it.
>
> A great many people find that the ability to do it gives them the right,
> largely because anyone disagreeing gets beaten up. I personally do not
> agree that this should be the case but I'm enough of a realist to
> recognise the situation.
But you're not arguing whether or not they are *able* to do this, which
is patently obvious; it's whether or not they have the *right* to do it.
>
> Also by that argument no magistrate has the right or
> all-seeing-know-it-allness to sentence anyone to anything.
The magistrate has been given the right by society, democracy and the
justice which serves them both. He didn't grab it for himself and
declare himself magistrate. He had to be either elected or appointed to
the job (not sure which it is, since I'm not quite sure what
"magistrate" refers to in this context).
>
> At some point a decision has to be made. It may be ill-considered
> (vigilante action), ill-informed (a lot of magistrates[1]) or
> target-orientated (a lot of coppers) but someone makes a decision.
Yes. And if that decision goes against the laws of society, as it would
if you were a vigilante, you will then have to suffer the consequences
of making that decision, such as jail time.
Bonzai Kitten
>
> Or they have a curfew box of their own...
Dumb blonde question:
What's a curfew box?
Diane L.
> Would you argue against an upstanding citizen who beat up a drug
> dealer selling at the gates of your children's school?
Yes.
Diane L.
Richard Bos
> Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote in
>
> > GaryN wrote:
> >> Would you argue against an upstanding citizen who beat up a drug
> >> dealer selling at the gates of your children's school?
> >
> > Yes, I would. Absolutely I would. No one has the *right* to use
> > violence against anyone else, and absolutely no one has the all-seeing
> > know-it-allness to decide who does or does not deserve to get beat up.
>
> Tell that to Robert Mugabe, or George Bush (either of them), or Hitler,
> or Stalin, or...
...GaryN, who also threatens to use violence to work off his own
frustrations and inadequacies.
> ...the list goes on.
Indeed it does. Be careful whose company you choose.
Richard
Julian Hall
> I can never find mine. I know I put them down here somewhere, but for the
> life of me I can't see them anywhere.
I once spent the entire afternoon looking for my glasses, put them on and
my vision got worse. I'd been looking for them wearing my contact lenses...
DOH!
Julian :)
Julian Hall
> Maybe the monitoring equipment /is/ "WiFi" - I don't know. In that
> case, another installation in the same house could interfere - a
> neighbour, much less likely, I think. On the other hand - how much of
> the time does 802.11# transmit, anyway? I thought it sat listening
> most of the time. It's described as basically Ethernet cable without
> the cable. And I think there was talk of Bluetooth and wireless
> network conflicting, and older equipment may do that.
>
> I think this boils down to various electronic device categories that
> could interfere with your curfew machine, but surely the conclusion is
> that you cannot use those devices. Yoo see what the alternative is.
>
> Outside chance too that someone close to you is operating WiFi with
> illegal signal strength - hacked and over-boosted - or just using
> radio frequencies that are not permitted for that use in the UK. That
> could be an issue with grey import equipment.
>
> Or they have a curfew box of their own...
>
> Or they're trying to get rid of you...
I'm open to correction on the below but it is all correct to the best of
my knowledge :) Those bits I looked up were on Wikipedia with the usual
caveats involved.
WiFi currently comes in three flavours (4 if you count Draft-N devices) of
802.11x... where x is one or more of;
a 5Ghz - indoor range ~35m
b 2.4Ghz - " " ~35m
g 2.4Ghz - " " ~35m
N 5/2.4Ghz - indoor range ~70m
All ranges to be taken with a hefty sack of salt as they are heavily
dependant upon the structure of the building especially composition of
walls etc.
As for WiFi just listening, I think that depends on the individual setup.
Certainly one of the main items in a WiFi configuration is the SSID (aka
the Network name). By default many routers leave this on 'Broadcast'[1]
as that makes the network easy to find for the users. It also leaves it
easily identifiable for hackers (but that's a whole other thread I will
ignore for now). So if Gary's neighbours are average users their WiFi
network could be broadcasting their SSID all the time, and *if* the
frequencies clash that could cause a problem.
Admittedly there are two big IFs in that last part, but certainly the
first one is a very common one to be true.
Bluetooth uses the microwave radio frequency spectrum in the 2.4 GHz to
2.4835 GHz range. That's essentially the same frequency (or near as
dammit) as 802.11 b,g and Draft-N. (I've just found out it's official
designation is 802.15 which I suppose is a big clue :)). I don't know if
Bluetooth broadcasts - I suppose it must do for the 'Search for active
devices' function to work. That adds another 'if'... if their mobile
phone etc has Bluietooth set to 'Hidden' which logic suggests turns off
the broadcast.
Gary do *you* have a mobile phone that might be broadcasting Bluetooth?
I couldn't find any info on what frequency(ies) the radio tagging works.
However Wifi is amply able to trip over *itself* if two or more adjacent
networks operate on the same channel. That's why (AFAIK) there are 11
channels on 802.11g so if you get poor performance you can try moving your
network to another channel (as far away as possible).
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the WiFi of a neighbour was
screwing things up. I would suggest contacting the police station and
asking an officer to come to the house so that you can demonstrate this
errant behaviour. I would certainly make them aware of your concerns
vis-a-vis the court appearance.
Kind regards,
Julian
[1] And use the name of the manufacturer which is about as secure as a
safe made of wet tissue paper.
Julian Hall
> In the UK, Road Tax, or more accuately Vehicle Excise Duty, was introduced
> in 1920 as a way to collect money from the drivers of mechanically driven
> vehicles (i.e. those with motors, not animals) to use in road maintenance,
> improvements etc.
And I'm still waiting for any evidence of it being used for that :)
I thought pot-holing was done by people underground wearing helmets with
lamps on them......
Kind regards,
Julian
Julian Hall
> Most definitely. If doing that, you have proven that you aren't an
> upstanding citizen, but a mere vigilante. An upstanding citizen would go to
> the police, and not give up until the police took action to uphold the law.
I'm going to surprise myself (maybe others too) by agreeing with Arthur :)
The old saying is 'Two wrongs don't make a right'. It says that for a
reason. On the other hand, the converse saying is 'Let the punishment fit
the crime'. How many idiots have caused death by reckless and/or
inattentive driving and been let off with a fine, or a short prison
sentence and a driving ban (which runs while they are in prison?? How
idiotic is that??). I'm not saying they deserve death of course, but the
current so-called penalties are ludicrously soft.
While I cannot condone vigilantism, I *can* understand the frustration
resulting from seeing someone walk free from court having caused the death
of a loved one. It seems that the choice of weapon is paramount. Use a
gun or knife and you get locked up. Use a car and you get a slap on the
wrist and stopped from accessing the weapon for a year or so.
Kind regards,
Julian
Julian Hall
> Tell that to Robert Mugabe, or George Bush (either of them), or Hitler,
> or Stalin, or......the list goes on.
There is a huge difference between an idiotic and/or psychotic Head of
State responsible for millions of deaths, and (e.g.) Joe Bloggs going out
to hand a few slaps to the guy down the road who knocked his sister over.
OK ethically as individuals they have the same responsibilities under law,
but the difference is Hitler et al *wrote* the laws.
> A great many people find that the ability to do it gives them the right,
> largely because anyone disagreeing gets beaten up.
That only works until they get caught and prosecuted for GBH[1].
> Also by that argument no magistrate has the right or
> all-seeing-know-it-allness to sentence anyone to anything.
Yes they do. Their 'all-seeing' eyes are the jury system of '12 good
men[1] and true' to make the judgement of guilt. Their only job is to
decide, if a guilty verdict is returned, what sentence to pass. Their job
is specifically to sentence a person 12 other people have declared guilty
based on the evidence presented to them.
[1] Grievous Bodily Harm - the scale AFAIK goes:
1 common assault - which can even be threatening someone with
witnesses.
2 actual assault - carrying out the threat - maybe just a slap
3 assault occasioning bodily harm - #2 with bells on
4 assault occasioning grievous bodily harm - #2 with bells AND
whistles on
[2] or women :)
GaryN
> GaryN wrote:
<snip>
>> A great many people find that the ability to do it gives them the
>> right, largely because anyone disagreeing gets beaten up. I
>> personally do not agree that this should be the case but I'm enough
>> of a realist to recognise the situation.
>
>But you're not arguing whether or not they are *able* to do this, which
> is patently obvious; it's whether or not they have the *right* to do
> it.
My point being that the ability to do it confers the 'right', because
anyone arguing finds that they have no rights. I don't like that but
I'm referring to practicalities rather than moralities.
>> Also by that argument no magistrate has the right or
>> all-seeing-know-it-allness to sentence anyone to anything.
>
> The magistrate has been given the right by society, democracy and
> the
> justice which serves them both. He didn't grab it for himself and
> declare himself magistrate. He had to be either elected or appointed
> to the job (not sure which it is, since I'm not quite sure what
> "magistrate" refers to in this context).
Appointed in the UK, although frequently for political reasons.
>> At some point a decision has to be made. It may be ill-considered
>> (vigilante action), ill-informed (a lot of magistrates[1]) or
>> target-orientated (a lot of coppers) but someone makes a decision.
>
>Yes. And if that decision goes against the laws of society, as it would
> if you were a vigilante, you will then have to suffer the consequences
> of making that decision, such as jail time.
Various cases have shown this to be in error. If acting in self-defence
I can use reasonable force[1] to protect myself. If, whilst attempting
to make a citizens arrest, (having called police and been told "Nobody
can get there for an hour") I find myself attacked I can legally defend
myself.
And I know someone will bring up the Tony Martin case so I'll just say
that shooting someone in the back whilst they are running away does not,
IMO, constitute self-defence.
gary
[1]A very flexible term. "He had a knife so it was reasonable force to
kick him unconscious. I think when I broke his arm the knife fell down
a drain/dropped into the river/was picked up by an innocent bystander
[delete whichever is inapliccable or unbelievable]"
GaryN
@news.xs4all.nl:
<snip>
> ...GaryN, who also threatens to use violence to work off his own
> frustrations and inadequacies.
I didn't threaten violence - I said it was a tempting option. If I'd had
any intention of doing the deed I would hardly have posted it here.
>
>> ...the list goes on.
>
> Indeed it does. Be careful whose company you choose.
afp of course - in all it's manifold forms and faces.
gary
GaryN
4252-b343-7...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
Because I fell out with the probation service I'm on a curfew which
means electronic tag on my ankle which recieves/sends signals to an
installed box in my home (and one in my GF's house at the weekend). If
I'm not within a certain radius, within certain hours, I go back to
court and they can activate a suspended prison sentence.
The problem is that the base units are *extremely* susceptible to
electrical/electronic interference (they don't like to install them
within a yard of any other electrical/electronic equipment) and, I find
3 months into a 4 month curfew, WiFi signals.
I can hardly tell my resident landlord to shut down his WiFi network and
expecting the neighbours (I can pick up 5 networks on my systems) to do
the same is beyond belief. For all I know the 16" of titanium in my leg
interfere with the bloody thing!
I'm of the opinion that this renders the system "Unfit for Purpose",
although I would tend to class most of what I've seen of the Probation
Service similarly.
gary
Bonzai Kitten
(snip)
>
> Because I fell out with the probation service I'm on a curfew which
> means electronic tag on my ankle which recieves/sends signals to an
> installed box in my home
(SNIP)
Ah, gotcha, one of those douverlackies. Might be worth logging the
times it goes off then checking if your neighbours (if they are
friendly, anyway) were using wifi at the time. They might be able to
back you up against the court for that.
GaryN
news:pan.2008.05.03....@kaotic.co.uk:
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 11:51:31 +0000, GaryN wrote:
>
>> Tell that to Robert Mugabe, or George Bush (either of them), or
>> Hitler, or Stalin, or......the list goes on.
>
> There is a huge difference between an idiotic and/or psychotic Head of
> State responsible for millions of deaths, and (e.g.) Joe Bloggs going
> out to hand a few slaps to the guy down the road who knocked his
> sister over.
How exactly are they different?
Kicking the crap out of one person is worse than killing millions
because you're paranoid? Hitler and Stalin were not born as psychotic
leaders.
In case you didn't notice the latest election results the BNP made
significant gains, and Joe Bloggs is gaining credibility for his bigoted
attitude.
> OK ethically as individuals they have the same
> responsibilities under law, but the difference is Hitler et al *wrote*
> the laws.
But Daniel isn't talking about the law - he's talking about the moral
right.
And what is law if not a written encoding of what is morally right?
>> A great many people find that the ability to do it gives them the
>> right, largely because anyone disagreeing gets beaten up.
>
> That only works until they get caught and prosecuted for GBH[1].
>
>> Also by that argument no magistrate has the right or
>> all-seeing-know-it-allness to sentence anyone to anything.
>
> Yes they do. Their 'all-seeing' eyes are the jury system of '12 good
> men[1] and true' to make the judgement of guilt. Their only job is to
> decide, if a guilty verdict is returned, what sentence to pass. Their
> job is specifically to sentence a person 12 other people have declared
> guilty based on the evidence presented to them.
Actually no. There is no jury in a magistrates court and many 'minor'
offences cannot be demanded, by the defence, to be tried in Crown Court.
Magistrates from the District Judge down are the arbitors in that court
and are advised (we hope) by the Clerk of Court.
I would suggest that you check your facts.
> [1] Grievous Bodily Harm - the scale AFAIK goes:
>
> 1 common assault - which can even be threatening someone with
> witnesses.
> 2 actual assault - carrying out the threat - maybe just a slap
> 3 assault occasioning bodily harm - #2 with bells on
> 4 assault occasioning grievous bodily harm - #2 with bells AND
> whistles on.
Oddly enough (and this *is* weird) you have 3 and 4 the wrong way round
- AOABH[1] is actually considered more serious than AOGBH. I have no
idea why, or exactly what the definitions are[2].
gary
[1] Illuc Ivi, Illud Feci.
[2]Because the lawyer representing me made off with 100K of the firm's
cash, and a secretary, 2 days before the trial.
GaryN
4648-bd5a-9...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Done court - they were annoyed at their time being wasted, told the
private contractors to clean up their act and refused to grant costs.
I'm only arguing the toss on other aspects of this thread because of
things that I percieve to be misapprehensions.
gary
Robert Carnegie
> If Gary's neighbours are average users their WiFi
> network could be broadcasting their SSID all the time, and *if* the
> frequencies clash that could cause a problem.
I think Gary knows about his neighbours' networks because the
equipment is announcing itself, but I don't know if that's a
continuous process or is generated when Gary's own computer asks "Are
there any network servers here?"
I can "see" two networks here and earlier today could see four, don't
know who "Bob and Sue" are anyway (but they haven't got security on),
and this is an avenue (actually "Wynd") of semi-detached villas.
Alec Cawley
> Yes they do. Their 'all-seeing' eyes are the jury system of '12 good
> men[1] and true' to make the judgement of guilt. Their only job is to
> decide, if a guilty verdict is returned, what sentence to pass. Their job
> is specifically to sentence a person 12 other people have declared guilty
> based on the evidence presented to them.
Not so. In the UK system, the bottom level is magistrates, usually
sitting as a panel, who both decide guilt and pass sentence. They cover
only relatively minor crimes. At the lowest level, a magistrate can sit
alone, and my father occasionally did so, to convict and fine small
amounts dunks who had to be kept on police cells overnight. 90% of
offences are dealt with by magistrates courts. The smallest offences can
only be dealt with there; for larget offences, the defendant may opt for
Crown Court, which has juries etc. The magistrates court has relatively
limited sentencing powers, so will occasionally refer cases to the Crown
Court themselves if they feel their powers inadequate.
Eric Jarvis
says...
Applause!
If I had contact lenses I'd do that.
Chris Zakes
GaryN <ga...@scaryriders.com> to write:
>Julian Hall <ne...@kaotic.co.uk> wrote in
>news:pan.2008.05.03....@kaotic.co.uk:
>
>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 11:51:31 +0000, GaryN wrote:
>>
>>> Tell that to Robert Mugabe, or George Bush (either of them), or
>>> Hitler, or Stalin, or......the list goes on.
>>
>> There is a huge difference between an idiotic and/or psychotic Head of
>> State responsible for millions of deaths, and (e.g.) Joe Bloggs going
>> out to hand a few slaps to the guy down the road who knocked his
>> sister over.
>
>
>How exactly are they different?
>
>Kicking the crap out of one person is worse than killing millions
>because you're paranoid? Hitler and Stalin were not born as psychotic
>leaders.
>
>In case you didn't notice the latest election results the BNP made
>significant gains, and Joe Bloggs is gaining credibility for his bigoted
>attitude.
>
>> OK ethically as individuals they have the same
>> responsibilities under law, but the difference is Hitler et al *wrote*
>> the laws.
>
>But Daniel isn't talking about the law - he's talking about the moral
>right.
>
>And what is law if not a written encoding of what is morally right?
Well... what *some* people consider "morally right." I'll pick on the
US because I'm more familiar with conditions here than in Britain. I'm
sure you have similar conditions there.
At the moment, abortion is legal in the US, even though there's been a
major debate for years about whether or not it's moral.
Many drugs that are now labelled as illegal--such as cocaine, heroin
and morphine--could be legally bought at the corner drugstore
(chemist's for you folks on that side of The Water) less than a
century ago. Which is the moral position here?
Seventy-five years ago, it was illegal in places such as Mississippi
or Louisiana for a white person to marry a black person. You'd
probably be hard-pressed to find someone arguing its moral rightness
in those days. Nowadays those laws have been deleted and few people
care.
To *my* mind, the duty of Law is to protect individuals from harm by
other individuals (whether we're talking about theft, bodily injury,
etc.) It should have no say on what a person does to himself, and
"morals" shouldn't enter into it except as it relates to injuring
another individual.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
"If I've reached the place where I'm a good influence on anybody, it's time I
cultivated some new vices."
-Oscar Jensen in "Space Cadet" by Robert Heinlein
Jeff Howell
> Would you argue against an upstanding citizen who beat up a drug dealer
> selling at the gates of your children's school?
(As many others have now said:)
Yes.
For many reasons. Firstly, it's an act of pure vigilantism, and it's
not the average citizen's place to take the law into their own hands.
Secondly, it's possible that in doing so you cause more harm than good -
maybe the police have been trying to find this guy's supplier and
suddenly you've stopped that from happening. Thirdly, chances are even
if you beat him so badly that he goes away and never comes back (which
is unlikely) someone else will likely replace him. Fourthly, the risk
of being hurt and/or killed either by the dealer or in retaliation later
is a stupid risk to take when one *could* contact the police instead.
Generic 'you' in all cases.
Let the police do the job they're being paid for, and if they're not
doing it, try to change *that* rather than trying to do their job.
--
Jeff
Len Oil
> I couldn't find any info on what frequency(ies) the radio tagging works.
> However Wifi is amply able to trip over *itself* if two or more adjacent
> networks operate on the same channel. That's why (AFAIK) there are 11
> channels on 802.11g so if you get poor performance you can try moving your
> network to another channel (as far away as possible).
I thought that FHSS and DHSS methods generally prevented one device from
interfering with another (is OFDM common, or even available, yet?)...
Of course, numerous DHSSes can fill in the gaps in one way and FHSSes
crowding them in another, causing denial or slow-down of communication,
accordingly, but it would take a greedy 'flooder' or a rather
narrow-minded victim device[1] to make it just the one other device
breaking the camel's back.
Bluetooth is a Frequency Hopping variety as well, right?
(And I don't know how it /is/ done, but I'd have implemented "search for
active devices" as a single (or occasionally repeated) shout of "Who's
Listening?", with active devices being primed to reply "Me! [...and my
'name' is <foo>]", rather than active one's saying "I'm active! I'm
active! I'm active!" repeatedly for any random searcher to latch
onto... It would make the general background of electronic smog not so
constantly 'full fat', to mix metaphors.)
[1] Indeed, I wouldn't put it past a tag's base-station to be el-cheapo
in that regard.
Robert Carnegie
reading correctly at
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/1492071
a "beacon frame" is transmitted from a wireless access point 10 times
a second, usually. So it /doesn't/ shut up when it isn't being used.
SeekUp
> I once spent the entire afternoon looking for my glasses, put them on and
> my vision got worse. I'd been looking for them wearing my contact
> lenses...
Ever put both contacts in the same eye? Another way to self-induce a panic
attack.
:-)
SteveD
wrote:
>To *my* mind, the duty of Law is to protect individuals from harm by
>other individuals (whether we're talking about theft, bodily injury,
>etc.) It should have no say on what a person does to himself, and
>"morals" shouldn't enter into it except as it relates to injuring
>another individual.
Quite right. Problems, though, tend to arise when various types of
personal actions lead to impacts on society as a whole, when the lawmakers
don't have access to all the relevant information linking the two because
not enough data has been collected, and in cases where the links between
the personal action and public effect are widely perceived as being other
than they actually are.
Not to mention when the public effects are actually *based* on public
perception and actions, which can and do change radically over time, and
cases where the lawmakers are not actually acting in the objective public
interest.
Even when the intentions are good and all the data is known, it's still
possible to muck up the wording of a law so that it causes unintended
effects and/or loopholes.
No wonder it's all a bit of a mess.
-SteveD
Robert Carnegie
> On 03 May 2008 14:46:06 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused
>
>
>
>
>
> >Julian Hall <n...@kaotic.co.uk> wrote in
We are a social species - so morality can't be purely individual. We
have mutual responsibilities.
Having said that - what was the question, again?
Robert Carnegie
> Even when the intentions are good and all the data is known, it's still
> possible to muck up the wording of a law so that it causes unintended
> effects and/or loopholes.
"Dogs must be carried on this escalator."
Sign sneakily installed by the Director of Dibbler Dog Rentals, Ltd.
esmi
<snip>
> And what is law if not a written encoding of what is morally right?
I can't help but think that this is a rather simplistic and
optimistically naive perception of the law. From what I can see, it has
far more to do with defining those "offences" that have more than a
snowball's chance in hell of being prosecutable within a court. Whether
"morality", or "rights", enter into it is probably an exercise best left
to the individual reader[1].
[1] although which side of the law the reader is on will also be a factor.
--
esmi
A Brief Guide to alt.fan.pratchett:
http://www.blackwidows.co.uk/afp-guide/
Graycat
>on 03/05/2008 15:46 GaryN said the following:
><snip>
>> And what is law if not a written encoding of what is morally right?
>
>I can't help but think that this is a rather simplistic and
>optimistically naive perception of the law. From what I can see, it has
>far more to do with defining those "offences" that have more than a
>snowball's chance in hell of being prosecutable within a court. Whether
>"morality", or "rights", enter into it is probably an exercise best left
>to the individual reader[1].
>
>[1] although which side of the law the reader is on will also be a factor.
You do all realise that the criminal law is only a small fraction of
the law as a whole, right?
Usually the most talked about fraction, but still a tiny part of the
whole system.
There are many and compex theories on how and why certain actions are
made criminal in any given legal system - some are theories about what
actually happens, and some about what should happen.
Morality tends to feature in both.
To briefly outline the one that was advocated in our literature when I
took legal theory;
For something to be criminalised it should fulfill the following
criteria:
1. Be morally wrong - the action must in some way be offensive.
2. Be harmful - it must cause harm to someone - person or society.
3. Be affectable - the criminalisation must serve a purpose, it must
affect the occurrence of the crime.
4. Criminalisation is the only or best measure to decrease/remove the
undesired behaviour.
My personal belief is that the process isn't quite that well worked
out. I believe that things are crminalised because:
1. They have been for a long time and there isn't enough interest to
remove it.
2. Public opinion is against the act.
3. It appears politically neccesary or desirable (and there isn't
enough public opinion against it).
Criminalisation is used as a tool - it can say "look, we take this
issue seriously" to people who complain about a perceived problem in
society. It can be used in the hopes of changing public opinion on a
certain issue - the hope is that people will feel either that "if it's
illegal it must be wrong", or simply abstain from doing the act
because they feel that _breaking_the_law_ is in itself wrong.
There can, and probably will, in any given country, exist crimes that
are _not_ seen as morally wrong by a majority of the population and
crimes that are unprosecutable.
There will definitely be, in all real countries, crimes that are seen
as not morally wrong by _parts_ of the population.
If a crime is seen as not morally wrong by a large majority of the
people, and it is politically interesting enough to get debated, then
it probably won't stay illegal.
If a crime is completely unprosecutable, and interesting enough that
the media picks it up - it can damage the system to keep it, as it
gives the appearance of an impotent system.
Some crimes are almost never comitted, or at least no one is
prosecuted for them, but they are kept around for the symbolic value.
--
Elin
The world makes perfect sense, as a black comedy
Chris Zakes
caused Graycat <grayca...@gmail.com> to write:
(snip)
>Some crimes are almost never comitted, or at least no one is
>prosecuted for them, but they are kept around for the symbolic value.
Like this one?
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=79533
A substitute teacher in Florida has supposedly been fired for
"wizardry."
Mr Angel
> Bluetooth uses the microwave radio frequency spectrum in the 2.4 GHz to
> 2.4835 GHz range. That's essentially the same frequency (or near as
> dammit) as 802.11 b,g and Draft-N. (I've just found out it's official
> designation is 802.15 which I suppose is a big clue :)). I don't know if
> Bluetooth broadcasts - I suppose it must do for the 'Search for active
> devices' function to work. That adds another 'if'... if their mobile
> phone etc has Bluietooth set to 'Hidden' which logic suggests turns off
> the broadcast.
>
> Gary do *you* have a mobile phone that might be broadcasting Bluetooth?
As I understand it, when you press 'add new devices' or similar, your
phone broadcasts a discover message, to which any non-hidden devices are
expected to respond. There's only ever continuous traffic once devices
are paired (so that they can make sure the other has wandered off), but
that's at a relatively low rate.
In any case, one of the big design considerations was that it mustn't
interfere with any of the other standards using that bit of the
spectrum. So I think a bluetooth phone (even when its talking to its
earpiece) is unlikely to add interference.
Those 2.4GHz TV-sender things, on the other hand, are a nightmare for
shouting over a very wide bit of the spectrum.
--
Mr Angel, indentured slave of Mistress Goddess
For address, see headers. No munging required
Robert Carnegie
wrote:
Oh... and some of those aren't licensed and properly specified for UK
use, either.
If it was TV or radio interference, you could get someone round from
whoever it is who governs that - I think not the BBC, I could be
wrong. For this... the same may apply. Enforcement might be
difficult generally, but if a neighbour has a gadget essentially
interfering with a custody device, then I expect things can move
faster, i.e. the thing is confiscated by the police. Wouldn't you
think so?
Len Oil
> On May 8, 8:31 am, Mr Angel <andrew_nos...@affordable-anime.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Those 2.4GHz TV-sender things, on the other hand, are a nightmare for
>> shouting over a very wide bit of the spectrum.
>
> Oh... and some of those aren't licensed and properly specified for UK
> use, either.
>
> If it was TV or radio interference, you could get someone round from
> whoever it is who governs that - I think not the BBC, I could be
Ofcom?
The ITU?
Robert Carnegie
Aha, according to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/analoguetv/interference.shtml
it's Ofcom (this week).
Sarah Vaughan
[of interference with electronic tagging devices]
> Enforcement might be
> difficult generally, but if a neighbour has a gadget essentially
> interfering with a custody device, then I expect things can move
> faster, i.e. the thing is confiscated by the police. Wouldn't you
> think so?
The police get to confiscate the legally-owned item of someone whose
only involvement is being the *neighbour* of someone who's got a tagging
device?? No, I wouldn't think so!
All the best,
Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com
"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell
John Wilkins
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> [of interference with electronic tagging devices]
> > Enforcement might be
> > difficult generally, but if a neighbour has a gadget essentially
> > interfering with a custody device, then I expect things can move
> > faster, i.e. the thing is confiscated by the police. Wouldn't you
> > think so?
>
> The police get to confiscate the legally-owned item of someone whose
> only involvement is being the *neighbour* of someone who's got a tagging
> device?? No, I wouldn't think so!
I wouldn't be surprised, but it wouldn't be right.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
SteveD
wrote:
>On Wed, 07 May 2008 17:10:03 +0200, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Graycat <grayca...@gmail.com> to write:
>(snip)
>
>>Some crimes are almost never comitted, or at least no one is
>>prosecuted for them, but they are kept around for the symbolic value.
>
>Like this one?
>http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=79533
>
>A substitute teacher in Florida has supposedly been fired for
>"wizardry."
Which is totally the wrong way to approach it. Having wizards for teachers
would be awesome.
-SteveD
Janaina Rudberg
Absolutely, I can't begin to tell you how many times I've had to
interrupt valuable study time to attend class.
With a wizard as a teacher, that problem would be solved!
/Janaina
Robert Carnegie
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> [of interference with electronic tagging devices]
>
> > Enforcement might be
> > difficult generally, but if a neighbour has a gadget essentially
> > interfering with a custody device, then I expect things can move
> > faster, i.e. the thing is confiscated by the police. Wouldn't you
> > think so?
>
> The police get to confiscate the legally-owned item of someone whose
> only involvement is being the *neighbour* of someone who's got a tagging
> device?? No, I wouldn't think so!
I expect that the act of interfering with an electronic tag system, by
whatever means, is illegal - but that's a guess. And if A is an
electronic device that accidentally interferes with B, a neighbour's
radio curfew tag, and if B is correctly designed and installed, then A
is probably in breach of some radio licensing legislation. Radio
emissions are regulated. I expect that Ofcom might take away A for
testing possibly leading to prosecution, and the police might take
away A's owner.
Having said that, a more common-sense resolution might be for A's
owner to point A in the other direction, and nothing and nobody needs
to be taken away.
There was and may still be a scale of permissibility of:
- Owning and dealing in certain electronic devices in Britain
- Actually using certain electronic devices
- Using certain electronic devices to infringe on the rights of others
For instance, radio bugging things could be sold but not legally
used. They may have been used illegally. Other devices can be used
only in certain ways - for instance, only with respect for people's
privacy, or... rules about switching off a mobile phone in certain
places come to mind.
And if you live in a farmhouse miles from anywhere then probably even
Ofcom doesn't care if your vacuum cleaner jams television signals, but
in a small flat with neighbours all around, it'll matter a lot.
Chris Zakes
As far as I can tell, the teacher's "wizardry" consisted of *one*
30-second sleight-of-hand trick. The school authorities are now
claiming that he was a bad teacher, didn't follow lesson plans, let
kids use unauthorized computers, etc. But according to the teacher,
none of that was brought up when he was fired.
<sigh> He-said/she-said, and we'll probably never know what really
happened.
Arthur Hagen
Nah. You'd get sued by J. K. "Litigation" Rowlins...
Regards,
--
*Art
Alec Cawley
> On May 9, 6:09 am, Sarah Vaughan <nanny...@samael.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>> [of interference with electronic tagging devices]
>>
>>> Enforcement might be
>>> difficult generally, but if a neighbour has a gadget essentially
>>> interfering with a custody device, then I expect things can move
>>> faster, i.e. the thing is confiscated by the police. Wouldn't you
>>> think so?
>> The police get to confiscate the legally-owned item of someone whose
>> only involvement is being the *neighbour* of someone who's got a tagging
>> device?? No, I wouldn't think so!
>
> I expect that the act of interfering with an electronic tag system, by
> whatever means, is illegal - but that's a guess. And if A is an
> electronic device that accidentally interferes with B, a neighbour's
> radio curfew tag, and if B is correctly designed and installed, then A
> is probably in breach of some radio licensing legislation. Radio
> emissions are regulated. I expect that Ofcom might take away A for
> testing possibly leading to prosecution, and the police might take
> away A's owner.
Or that the tag is badly designed or implemented. Given the government's
touching believe in the ability of the technology fairies to solve
whatever problem they currently have, that would not surprise me. The
Law and Order brigade decide that a perfect tagging system would solve
all known problems, so they fall for the first dodgy salesman with a
crap tagging system.
The history of government IT makes this highly likely. A New Scientist
article said that the government could not answer what the target false
positive and false negative rates were for the biometric systems used in
the National ID card system. Which means either they did not have them,
or they were so deeply buried as to be useless.
Eric Jarvis
says...
>
> The history of government IT makes this highly likely. A New Scientist
> article said that the government could not answer what the target false
> positive and false negative rates were for the biometric systems used in
> the National ID card system. Which means either they did not have them,
> or they were so deeply buried as to be useless.
>
Or possibly that they have no intention of asking any of the civil
servants who might know.
I have been told by an "insider" that the Home Office know five reasons
why a compulsory biometric ID card system can't possibly work. They just
don't yet know which will be the reason for abandoning the idea. It seems
to be increasingly likely to be an accurate assesment of what's
happening.
Julian Hall
> Of course, numerous DHSSes can fill in the gaps in one way and FHSSes
> crowding them in another, causing denial or slow-down of communication,
> accordingly, but it would take a greedy 'flooder' or a rather
> narrow-minded victim device[1] to make it just the one other device
> breaking the camel's back.
You'd be surprised how weak the signal can get very quickly if two colse
routers overlap and muck up each other's bandwidth. That's why I said
poor performance not total lack of :)
> (And I don't know how it /is/ done, but I'd have implemented "search for
> active devices" as a single (or occasionally repeated) shout of "Who's
> Listening?", with active devices being primed to reply "Me! [...and my
> 'name' is <foo>]", rather than active one's saying "I'm active! I'm
> active! I'm active!" repeatedly for any random searcher to latch
> onto... It would make the general background of electronic smog not so
> constantly 'full fat', to mix metaphors.)
I would have done it that way too.. but then that's common sense, and
what's the one thing we all know about sense? ;)
Kind regards,
Julian
Julian Hall
> I have been told by an "insider" that the Home Office know five reasons
> why a compulsory biometric ID card system can't possibly work. They just
> don't yet know which will be the reason for abandoning the idea.
Cork board, five scraps of paper, dart. Decision made :)
Worryingly now that I look at it, this seems all too plausible...
Kind regards,
Julian
Julian Hall
Yes, but not twice :)
Thankfully I had LASIK four years ago so am saved from that particular
vein of cockupery[1] :)
Kind regards,
Julian
[1] new word - I may keep it :)
Lesley Weston
> On Tue, 06 May 2008 02:11:38 +0200, SeekUp wrote:
>
>> Julian Hall" <ne...@kaotic.co.uk> wrote in
>>
>>> I once spent the entire afternoon looking for my glasses, put them on and
>>> my vision got worse. I'd been looking for them wearing my contact
>>> lenses...
>> Ever put both contacts in the same eye? Another way to self-induce a panic
>> attack.
>> :-)
>
> Yes, but not twice :)
>
> Thankfully I had LASIK four years ago so am saved from that particular
> vein of cockupery[1] :)
My son had that done a couple of years ago; he says it's wonderful to be
able to see without any kind of worries.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julian
>
> [1] new word - I may keep it :)
I think you should.
--
Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long
time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Alec Cawley
*Please* can they leak them to five different newspapers.
Eric Jarvis
ne...@kaotic.co.uk says...
That's the problem isn't it? How can we take pride in our satirical
cynicism when every year it becomes more like simple realism?
Elliott Grasett
--
Cheers,
Elliott
One cannot long remain despondent in a world
that daily affords one something new to loathe.
GaryN
@tree.broomstick.com:
Perhaps she could be sued by said teacher for raising the whole concept
in the first place. AFAIK but ICBW the USian legal system is
opportunistic enough to at least give it a go....
gary
Elliott Grasett
> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in news:g01qh3$3hr$1
<snip>
>> Nah. You'd get sued by J. K. "Litigation" Rowlins...
>
> Perhaps she could be sued by said teacher for raising the whole concept
> in the first place. AFAIK but ICBW the USian legal system is
> opportunistic enough to at least give it a go....
>
> gary
A thought occurs to me, which may not be true, and possibly not even
funny: a legal system gets the lawyers it deserves.
--
Cheers,
Elliott
Chris Zakes
You'd best be careful, Art. If she sees this, you may get sued for
spelling her name wrong.
FiX
wrote:
Hey, I didn't know you had emigrated to France! Nice, are you near
Paris? ;-P
FiX
--
"[afp believes its] sensibilities are so refined that we
appreciate things that leave Joe and Josephine Q.
Public drooling with duh."
-April Goodwin-Smith
Nigel Stapley
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 00:59:25 +0100, Eric Jarvis <ericj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2008.05.10....@kaotic.co.uk>,
>> ne...@kaotic.co.uk says...
>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:46:30 +0100, Eric Jarvis wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have been told by an "insider" that the Home Office know five reasons
>>>> why a compulsory biometric ID card system can't possibly work. They just
>>>> don't yet know which will be the reason for abandoning the idea.
>
>>> Cork board, five scraps of paper, dart. Decision made :)
>
>>> Worryingly now that I look at it, this seems all too plausible...
>
>> That's the problem isn't it? How can we take pride in our satirical
>> cynicism when every year it becomes more like simple realism?
>
> Hey, I didn't know you had emigrated to France! Nice, are you near
> Paris? ;-P
No I'm not.
(signed) Nice
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Nice, are you near Paris? ;-P
Other end of the country, isn't it?
--
Dave
So I looked, and behold, a pale horse.
And the name of him who sat on it was Death.
And the name of the horse was Binky.
Richard Bos
> In article <68jtnoF...@mid.individual.net>, al...@spamspam.co.uk
> says...
> >
> > The history of government IT makes this highly likely. A New Scientist
> > article said that the government could not answer what the target false
> > positive and false negative rates were for the biometric systems used in
> > the National ID card system. Which means either they did not have them,
> > or they were so deeply buried as to be useless.
>
> Or possibly that they have no intention of asking any of the civil
> servants who might know.
Or indeed anyone else, regardless of knowledge.
> I have been told by an "insider" that the Home Office know five reasons
> why a compulsory biometric ID card system can't possibly work. They just
> don't yet know which will be the reason for abandoning the idea.
You appear to be assuming that it _will_ be abandoned. IMO, this
displays an amount of disbelief in the malevolence of your current crop
of politicians which I find alternately endearing and frightening.
Richard
8'FED
> That's the problem isn't it? How can we take pride in our satirical
> cynicism when every year it becomes more like simple realism?
Is this the right point to mention that last week [1] I re-read my
copy of "The Complete Yes Prime Minister"?
Adrian.
[1] including several chapters on the train from Adelaide to Melbourne
--
Recent blog posts: <http://outerhoard.wordpress.com/>. A post randomly
selected from the archives: <http://outerhoard.wordpress.com/?random>.
Carol Hague
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
>
> > That's the problem isn't it? How can we take pride in our satirical
> > cynicism when every year it becomes more like simple realism?
>
> Is this the right point to mention that last week [1] I re-read my
> copy of "The Complete Yes Prime Minister"?
>
> Adrian.
>
> [1] including several chapters on the train from Adelaide to Melbourne
Why were several chapters of a comedy about British politics devoted to
an Australian train? Most odd. :-)
--
Carol
"If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put
that thing in your mouth. Particularly if the thing is
cats." - Lemony Snicket _The Wide Window_
Len Oil
> 8'FED <dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
>> Is this the right point to mention that last week [1] I re-read my
>> copy of "The Complete Yes Prime Minister"?
>>
>> Adrian.
>>
>> [1] including several chapters on the train from Adelaide to Melbourne
>
> Why were several chapters of a comedy about British politics devoted to
> an Australian train? Most odd. :-)
He was probably (admittedly inexplicably) on a trip from Northern
Ireland to either East Yorkshire or Derbyshire... And isn't South
Derbyshire the place the DAA has a lot of awkward problems of efficiency
with, IIRC? ;)
Carol Hague
I know not, but since I live ther, it wouldn't entirely surprise me :-)
GaryN
news:48276178...@news.xs4all.nl:
Would that be the current crop of Labour politicians (and wives) who are
all saying that they told Tony to sack Gordon long before Tony resigned?
Or the endearingly frightening Boris - who might just turn out to be
good? I do realise that this is an unconventional view but it's vaguely
possible; at least he has more personality, and fewer illegitimate
children, than Red Ken.
In all truth our previous 'Vicar of St Albions' has done to Gordon what
Thatcher did to Major[1].
And when was it that we started referring to our political leaders by
their first names rather than Mr or Mrs?
gary
[1] Leave an utterly f**ked economy and a pissed-off electorate, say "A
big boy did it and ran away", then sign up for high-paying speaking
engagements.
GaryN
news:mrOdnTCWd5PmaLvV...@wightman.ca:
An alternative view is that a legal system gets the *plaintiffs* it
deserves and then spawns lawyers to serve them.
Too many people, and I'd like to think that I'm not one of them, refuse
to take responsibility for their own actions.
It's always "Somebody Else's Fault"[1]
gary
[1]Hope you all noticed the correctly placed apostrophe there..:-)
Len Oil
> Or the endearingly frightening Boris - who might just turn out to be
> good? I do realise that this is an unconventional view but it's vaguely
> possible; at least he has more personality, and fewer illegitimate
> children, than Red Ken.
Why didn't they elect wossisname, the ex-policeman, then? Oh, hang on,
you mentioned personality as well. ;)
esmi
recently.
on 07/05/2008 16:10 Graycat said the following:
> esmi <es...@lspace.org> wrote:
>
>> on 03/05/2008 15:46 GaryN said the following:
>> <snip>
>>> And what is law if not a written encoding of what is morally right?
>> I can't help but think that this is a rather simplistic and
>> optimistically naive perception of the law. From what I can see, it has
>> far more to do with defining those "offences" that have more than a
>> snowball's chance in hell of being prosecutable within a court.
<snip>
> You do all realise that the criminal law is only a small fraction of
> the law as a whole, right?
Absolutely. My use of the term "offences" was probably misplaced on
re-reading - "actions" might have been better
<snip>
> My personal belief is that the process isn't quite that well worked
> out. I believe that things are crminalised because:
> 1. They have been for a long time and there isn't enough interest to
> remove it.
> 2. Public opinion is against the act.
> 3. It appears politically neccesary or desirable (and there isn't
> enough public opinion against it).
Call me cynical but I do think that Point 3 is often a major factor.
Politicians can, and do, enact laws because they then appear to be
"doing something" about a given problem. In reality, they are all too
often just passing a different problem onto others to sort out/deal with.
The point that I was trying to make was that laws have to be practical
too and turning a moral right into a practically applicable law isn't
always as easy as it sounds.
--
esmi
A Brief Guide to alt.fan.pratchett:
http://www.blackwidows.co.uk/afp-guide/
Graycat
>Apologies for the rather late followup. I've been drowning in work just
>recently.
>
>on 07/05/2008 16:10 Graycat said the following:
>> esmi <es...@lspace.org> wrote:
>>
>>> on 03/05/2008 15:46 GaryN said the following:
>>> <snip>
>>>> And what is law if not a written encoding of what is morally right?
>>> I can't help but think that this is a rather simplistic and
>>> optimistically naive perception of the law. From what I can see, it has
>>> far more to do with defining those "offences" that have more than a
>>> snowball's chance in hell of being prosecutable within a court.
><snip>
>
>> You do all realise that the criminal law is only a small fraction of
>> the law as a whole, right?
>
>Absolutely. My use of the term "offences" was probably misplaced on
>re-reading - "actions" might have been better
Yeah, it's better. It is easy to also forget how huge the number of
laws that get passed every year is (at least in this country) and that
the vast majority of them are administrative and of absolutely no
interest to the media or most of the public.
Making laws is _the_ way a (modern/western) government runs a country.
More or less every binding decision made by the riksdag (swedish
parliemant), and presumably most other parliaments, is a law. That's
what they do, it's pretty much _all_ they do.
The Karnov database lists 29 main areas of Swedish law - each one of
which can be subdivided into yet more areas. The vast majority of this
just states how things are organised and who handles what. The part of
the law that involves any kind of action in court is, relatively
speaking, very small.
Most people would probably be shocked at what the law actually
includes - I don't think may people realise you need a law to say how
many street signs can be put up, or where, or how to organise a filing
system, or any myriad of tiny procedural rules that actually exist.
Most people, in my experience, would, if they didn't think about it,
say that the law is that stuff in the blue book
(http://www.goliatskonsult.com/images/lagbok.gif) - and not really
realise that a book of just over 2000 pages is nowhere near enough to
contain all the law of the country. After all, it has all the
important stuff in it - the laws that most people ever need to look
at; the family law, criminal law, basic laws of contracts, basic laws
of property, and so on.
>> My personal belief is that the process isn't quite that well worked
>> out. I believe that things are crminalised because:
>> 1. They have been for a long time and there isn't enough interest to
>> remove it.
>> 2. Public opinion is against the act.
>> 3. It appears politically neccesary or desirable (and there isn't
>> enough public opinion against it).
>
>Call me cynical but I do think that Point 3 is often a major factor.
>Politicians can, and do, enact laws because they then appear to be
>"doing something" about a given problem. In reality, they are all too
>often just passing a different problem onto others to sort out/deal with.
I agree - I wasn't ranking the three, just listing what I believe to
be the main motivators. In any given case you may have any one of
them, and possibly more than one.
>The point that I was trying to make was that laws have to be practical
>too and turning a moral right into a practically applicable law isn't
>always as easy as it sounds.
True - and, imo, not always desireable either.><snip>
--
Elin
The world makes perfect sense, as a black comedy
FiX
wrote:
>Making laws is _the_ way a (modern/western) government runs a country.
>More or less every binding decision made by the riksdag (swedish
>parliemant), and presumably most other parliaments, is a law. That's
>what they do, it's pretty much _all_ they do.
Ah, no, not here: they also deal quite a lot with regulations. Now
defining the exact limit between what belongs to a law and what
belongs to a regulation is something I won't try geting into ;-P
Our parliament also (badly) controls the Country budget, and can
overthrow the government, which once again is not a law...
and the government, of course, does not make the law, it would be a
pretty undemocratic country where the government, not the parliament,
issued the laws...
Graycat
>On Mon, 12 May 2008 15:55:39 +0200, Graycat <grayca...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Making laws is _the_ way a (modern/western) government runs a country.
>>More or less every binding decision made by the riksdag (swedish
>>parliemant), and presumably most other parliaments, is a law. That's
>>what they do, it's pretty much _all_ they do.
>
>Ah, no, not here: they also deal quite a lot with regulations. Now
>defining the exact limit between what belongs to a law and what
>belongs to a regulation is something I won't try geting into ;-P
>Our parliament also (badly) controls the Country budget, and can
>overthrow the government, which once again is not a law...
>and the government, of course, does not make the law, it would be a
>pretty undemocratic country where the government, not the parliament,
>issued the laws...
The parliament makes laws, the government makes law-like rules we call
"förordningar". But the government governs mostly by proposing laws to
the parliament, that will then usually be passed since the government
generally has majority support in parliament.[1] The laws aren't
written by the parliament, but they are passed by it.
The parliament can overthrow the government, but they generally don't.
The government writes a budget, and then that is passed by the
parliament - but I think that actually is in the form of a law - it's
submitted the same way as a law proposal anyway.
[1] I simplify.
Elliott Grasett
You could be right (you were certainly right on the apostrophe).
What we may have here is a sort of symbiosis, or vicious circle.
--
Cheers,
Elliott