Terrorists caught for driving without insurance

[Andrew Swallow]

In England a terrorist gang were caught for driving without insurance.
When they searched the car the police found the weapons.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054

I wonder if this tactic can be used elsewhere?
Insurance companies have computerised records. Most countries have
computerised registrations of cars and their owners. The two lists can
be compared and any discrepancy investigated. The traffic cops can then
stop cars without registration and insurance.

Is not having car insurance sufficient grounds to get a search warrant
to search a house and garage? Using the observation that where one
crime has been detected the crooks are also frequently a second.

Andrew Swallow

[willshak]

In most cities in the US, and even some towns, the police cars have
scanners that record every license plate the police car passes whether
moving or parked, and at normal speeds. Any wants or warrants come up on
a screen in the PD car. You can see which PD cars have them by the two
scanners mounted on the trunk lid.
http://kcpdchief.blogspot.com/2010/07/license-plate-readers-snag-violators.html

--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

[Keith W]

ANPR is pretty much universal on traffic patrol cars in England.

Keith

[Bill]

The bloke did have insurance. but he'd filled in his on-line form
incorrectly and when the police did the on-line check the car came up
as uninsured.

The police stopped their car, accepted the explanation but insisted
that the car remain with them.

They released the occupants and gave them a lift to the nearest
railway station.

It was two days later that the police bothered to open the boot
(trunk) of the car and found the collection of arms and explosives and
propaganda pamphlets.

For some reason the perpetrators didn't flee the country...

Everyone involved comes out of this one looking like complete idiots,
along with the security service who, it seems, had this bunch of
idiots under surveillance but didn't notice them loading their car
with weapons and explosives...

[Keith W]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 20:32:46 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In England a terrorist gang were caught for driving without
>>> insurance. When they searched the car the police found the weapons.
>>>
>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054
>>>
>>> I wonder if this tactic can be used elsewhere?
>>> Insurance companies have computerised records. Most countries have
>>> computerised registrations of cars and their owners. The two lists
>>> can be compared and any discrepancy investigated. The traffic cops
>>> can then stop cars without registration and insurance.
>>>
>>> Is not having car insurance sufficient grounds to get a search
>>> warrant to search a house and garage? Using the observation that
>>> where one crime has been detected the crooks are also frequently a
>>> second.
>>
>> The bloke did have insurance. but he'd filled in his on-line form
>> incorrectly and when the police did the on-line check the car came up
>> as uninsured.
>>
>> The police stopped their car, accepted the explanation but insisted
>> that the car remain with them.
>>
>> They released the occupants and gave them a lift to the nearest
>> railway station.
>>
>

> So they impounded the car even after agreeing that the occupants had
> done nothing wrong?

No they impounded the car as it had no valid insurance
showing up on the system. All the numpties had to do was
get the insurance company to correct it and they could have
picked it up the next day.

> I'm glad I'm not British!

As are we all.

Keith

[Keith W]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> In England a terrorist gang were caught for driving without
>> insurance. When they searched the car the police found the weapons.
>>
>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054
>>
>> I wonder if this tactic can be used elsewhere?
>>
>

> Probably.

>
>>
>> Insurance companies have computerised records. Most countries have
>> computerised registrations of cars and their owners. The two lists
>> can be compared and any discrepancy investigated.
>>
>

> But first they would have to subpoena the insurance records and any
> sane judge is going to say "I'm afraid 'all your policies' is just a
> bit overly broad."
>

Thats not how it works. There's a motor insurance database and the
insurance companies simply upload the details of all insured vehicles to it.
It was set up by the insurance companies themselves to help
cut down on the number of uninsured drivers

http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database/en/default.htm

>>
>> The traffic cops can then
>> stop cars without registration and insurance.
>>
>

> Nope. If a car owner does not have insurance and I operate their car
> and I have insurance, that is legal.
>

Quite so and if you can verify your id and that you
have insurance they'll thank you for your cooperation
and send you on your way.


Keith

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:13p3o8l315u12kv4q...@4ax.com...

>So they impounded the car even after agreeing that the
>occupants had

done nothing wrong? I'm glad I'm not British!


The owner of the car did not have it insured, they held it
until the error was cleared up. Those who were using the car
were given a break. What part of the scenario bothers you?

[peter skelton]

"Keith W" wrote in message
news:%Togt.121328$zK3....@fx17.fr7...

>>
>
> Nope. If a car owner does not have insurance and I
> operate their car
> and I have insurance, that is legal.
>

>Quite so and if you can verify your id and that you
have insurance they'll thank you for your cooperation
and send you on your way.

Here, insurance on another party's car is a special rider
that costs 40 bucks a year for two drivers and is well worth
having - it avoids the "insurance" charges from rental
companies and tend to prevent frivolous damage claims from
them.

[tutall]

On May 2, 6:33 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's in the UK.  He wondered if such a tactic could be used
> ELSEWHERE, in actual civilized nations.

Civilized nations that felonize schoolgirls for a little science
experiment?

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/may/1/florida-schoolgirl-charged-felony-science/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57582330-71/schoolgirl-tries-science-experiment-arrested-for-felony/

What civilized nation(s) were you thinking of Fred?

Canada?

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:1rq4o81r4goscu0td...@4ax.com...

>That "once it was cleared up" they kept the car anyway.
>Nobody was
ticketed ("accepted the explanation" and "released the
occupants"),
but they "insisted the car remain with them". In civilized
nations, a
crime has to be committed (someone gets ticketed or charged)
before
the police can just decide to keep your property.

"once it was cleared up" is a quote you pulled out of your
arse. What was said was "until it was cleared up". The car
was kept for good and valid reason as has been explained to
you twice now.

Incidentally, no one has to be ticketed or charged before
evidence is kept in the US. Even in the US, the police
prefer to build a case before charging people. The police
did not just decide to hold the car, they held it because it
was being driven uninsured.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:n2r4o8tsud2njp5tm...@4ax.com...

>Here there is no extra charge for insurance that is
>required by law
(that being LIABILITY insurance, not 'own vehicle' damage
insurance)
and it is by driver and not by vehicle. In civilized
countries car
rental agencies are not criminal enterprises that will level
"frivolous damage claims" against random patrons.

In the US liability insurance is on the vehicle. That is why
it is called 'vehicle insurance'. It covers the vehicle
regardless of driver. Generally, but not always, US policies
extend to cover vehicles driven by drivers named on the
policy.

And yes, frivolous damage claims are a problem in the US
too.

[a425couple]

"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in...

> In England a terrorist gang were caught for driving without insurance.
> When they searched the car the police found the weapons.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054
>

> I wonder if this tactic can be used elsewhere?

The generalized 'tactic' (concentrating some police assets
on easily observed somewhat minor violations)
can certainly be used nearly everywhere,
and is used in many jurisdictions.

(As I recall it, the UK and Canadian process for car
insurance & inspections etc. work considerably different
from the US system for car tabs.
Very different base philosophy, not that huge a difference
in end results.)

If you are seriously interested, I could dig up some
old professional LEO papers advocating that 'school of thought'
and I'm pretty positive that if/when I find them I can
find "on-line" copies. ((Was it 'Violation directed patroling'??)

Do recall, Tim McVeigh was caught for a fairly minor
"tab" issue. As have been many serious criminals.
The downside is many of the public, and the media,
think the LEA's are paying too much attention to
'little things' rather than 'serious issues'.
(Criticisims of 'chippie behavior', or citing for revenue,
or filling quotas etc.)
Those critical thoughts totally miss the fact that once a person
has decided to do major crimes, they almost always
quit obeying the laws & regulations on little issues also!!

> Using the observation that where one crime has been detected

> the crooks are also frequently ((engages in)) a second.

Exactly!

> Insurance companies have computerised records. Most countries have
> computerised registrations of cars and their owners. The two lists can
> be compared and any discrepancy investigated. The traffic cops can then
> stop cars without registration and insurance.

The above would be wasteful way of doing it.

> Is not having car insurance sufficient grounds to get a search warrant
> to search a house and garage?

Certainly not in the USA (unless many more facts presented).

[a425couple]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>>>> In England a terrorist gang ----
>>> But first they ---
>>Thats not how ---
>
> But they'll be stopping people without probable cause, which civilized
> countries don't allow. They either have to set up blocks and stop
> EVERYONE or else they have to observe some overt act.

Fred, just an friendly attempt to impart information:
In the US, the legality of roadblocks varies from
state to state, mostly dependant on the state constitutions
and how they have been interpreted by each of the states
Supreme Courts.

In other words, in many states, you CAN NOT stop
everyone on a public roadway, just to search
for some mundane violation.

[a425couple]

"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...

> "Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in...
>> In England a terrorist gang were caught for driving without insurance.
>> When they searched the car the police found the weapons.
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054
>>
>> I wonder if this tactic can be used elsewhere?
>
> The generalized 'tactic' (concentrating some police assets on easily
> observed somewhat minor violations) can certainly be used nearly

> everywhere, and is used in many jurisdictions. ----

>
> If you are seriously interested, I could dig up some old professional LEO
> papers advocating that 'school of thought' and I'm pretty positive that
> if/when I find them I can find "on-line" copies. ((Was it 'Violation
> directed patroling'??)
>
> Do recall, Tim McVeigh was caught for a fairly minor "tab" issue. As have
> been many serious criminals. The downside is many of the public, and the
> media, think the LEA's are paying too much attention to 'little things'
> rather than 'serious issues'. (Criticisims of 'chippie behavior', or
> citing for revenue, or filling quotas etc.)
> Those critical thoughts totally miss the fact that once a person has
> decided to do major crimes, they almost always quit obeying the laws &
> regulations on little issues also!!

I surprised myself, and WAS able to online find one of
the more interesting and informative documents.

Try:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/deskbk.html
and especially to "Part 2" "Community-Oriented Traffic Policing".

Especially,
"Two for the Price of One

Traffic law enforcement gives officers at the state, local, and county
police levels the unparalleled opportunity to save lives. The causal
relationship between consistent, goal-oriented enforcement and casualty
reduction stands clear and unimpeachable. Traffic enforcement is
demonstrably justifiable on its own merits. Yet, today an emerging secondary
benefit reinforces the value of roving patrol officers. They have become
major crime fighters! America's long-standing reliance on the motor vehicle
has put crime literally on the nation's streets and highways. Murderers,
robbers, auto thieves, and drug traffickers all travel by motor vehicle. And
when they violate traffic laws-a frequent occurrence because criminals
typically are preoccupied by their crimes-that familiar police light appears
in the mirror. This once meant two things: a short conversation with the
officer and a traffic citation. Today, much more can follow.

What happens in those few moments when an officer approaches a violator
describes the quiet revolution taking place within law enforcement. Officers
more frequently recognize that the violator doesn't quite fit the
circumstances. The subject's demeanor, the caliber of responses to
questions, a lack of knowledge about the vehicle-these and similar factors
noted by the alert, trained observer recommend further investi-gation. And
further investigation pays off in criminal arrests. None of this results
from mere luck. Specialized training, a growing reservoir of favorable
experience and, perhaps most important, the intelligent wariness of the
individual combine to transform him from a traffic officer into something
more. It's as if we're getting two people for the price of one: an officer
skilled in traffic and another knowledgeable in general criminal
investigative techniques."

IMHO, for the casually interested reader, the section titled
"Violator-Directed Patrol" (an Arizona project) is quite worthwhile.

[Keith W]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In England a terrorist gang were caught for driving without
>>>> insurance. When they searched the car the police found the weapons.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if this tactic can be used elsewhere?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Probably.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Insurance companies have computerised records. Most countries have
>>>> computerised registrations of cars and their owners. The two lists
>>>> can be compared and any discrepancy investigated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But first they would have to subpoena the insurance records and any
>>> sane judge is going to say "I'm afraid 'all your policies' is just a
>>> bit overly broad."
>>>
>>
>> Thats not how it works. There's a motor insurance database and the
>> insurance companies simply upload the details of all insured
>> vehicles to it. It was set up by the insurance companies themselves
>> to help
>> cut down on the number of uninsured drivers
>>
>> http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database/en/default.htm
>>
>

> That's in the UK. He wondered if such a tactic could be used
> ELSEWHERE, in actual civilized nations.
>

So stopping uninsured vehicles is uncivilized huh.

Sorry but as someone who's car was totalled by an unisured
driver I have no sympathy with that nonsense.

>>>>
>>>> The traffic cops can then
>>>> stop cars without registration and insurance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. If a car owner does not have insurance and I operate their
>>> car and I have insurance, that is legal.
>>>
>>
>> Quite so and if you can verify your id and that you
>> have insurance they'll thank you for your cooperation
>> and send you on your way.
>>
>

> But they'll be stopping people without probable cause, which civilized
> countries don't allow. They either have to set up blocks and stop
> EVERYONE or else they have to observe some overt act.

Nope they have probable cause in that there is no active insurance
policy for the vehicle. The overt act is of course driving an
uninsured vehicle.

Keith

[Dean Markley]

You are changing the subject but hell, most schools in the US act like that. They have these silly zero tolerance policies that substitute for common sense.

[Andrew Swallow]

On 02/05/2013 14:33, Fred J. McCall wrote:
{snip}

>
> But they'll be stopping people without probable cause, which civilized
> countries don't allow. They either have to set up blocks and stop
> EVERYONE or else they have to observe some overt act.
>

I suspect that the surveillance camera's computer reported that there
was no insurance policy associated with the car's number plate. Since
driving without insurance is a crime the police had probable cause to
stop the car.

The policeman believed the excuse that it was accidental. However if
they had driven the car away they would have been knowingly driving a
car without insurance.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

On 02/05/2013 14:38, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> That "once it was cleared up" they kept the car anyway. Nobody was
> ticketed ("accepted the explanation" and "released the occupants"),
> but they "insisted the car remain with them". In civilized nations, a
> crime has to be committed (someone gets ticketed or charged) before
> the police can just decide to keep your property.
>

They were let off rather than cleared.

[quote]
: Driving without insurance

Driving a vehicle on a road or in a public place without at least 3rd
party insurance is illegal.

Even if the vehicle itself is insured, if you�re not correctly insured
to drive it you could get penalised.
Penalties for uninsured drivers:

If you�re caught driving a vehicle you�re not insured to drive, the
police could give you a fixed penalty of �200 and 6 penalty points.

If the case goes to court you could get:

a maximum fine of �5,000
disqualified from driving

The police also have the power to seize, and in some cases, destroy the
vehicle that�s being driven uninsured.
[/quote]
<https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/driving-without-insurance>
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/driving-without-insurance

Andrew Swallow

[Dean Markley]

Not to change the subject but there are clear covers you can buy that will prevent such cameras from recording your plate number.

[Kerryn Offord]

On 3/05/2013 7:47 a.m., Dean Markley wrote:
<SNIP>

>
> Not to change the subject but there are clear covers you can buy that will prevent such cameras from recording your plate number.
>

And Mythbusters did an episode where they tried several of them with no
success.. A fixed camera had complete success regardless of what was
done...


I wonder what would happen if the computer suddenly announced "Can't
read the numberplate" on a car.. Would that be just cause to stop it?

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Unbelievable !

giving a hike to terrorists, then bothered with search TWO days later,
and OTOH the terrorists fail to exploit the allah-send headway and don't
hide in clandestinity or flee the country....

... I simply can't decide what is the most idiot bunch....

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 02/05/2013 15:38, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

> That "once it was cleared up" they kept the car anyway. Nobody was
> ticketed ("accepted the explanation" and "released the occupants"),
> but they "insisted the car remain with them". In civilized nations, a
> crime has to be committed (someone gets ticketed or charged) before
> the police can just decide to keep your property.

well, I don't known about UK or other EU country, but generally on this
side of the Ocean, impounding often help people remembering the
paperwork/fines to do... I suspect that the HM Keystones has opened the
car initially to see if they find how to call and remind that they are
still waiting for the insurance paperwork....

Thanks to the Divine that the "terror" (actually *fool* ) group don't
have the gall to play on "honest citizen" and carry on their plot (in
this case, the attack will have led to a massive upheaval inside UK
police, with a snowballing of resignation &c.)

literally, God Save the Queen and confusion to the enemy !!! O_O

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 02/05/2013 18:53, a425couple ha scritto:

> The generalized 'tactic' (concentrating some police assets on easily
> observed somewhat minor violations) can certainly be used nearly
> everywhere, and is used in many jurisdictions.
> (As I recall it, the UK and Canadian process for car insurance &
> inspections etc. work considerably different from the US system for car
> tabs. Very different base philosophy, not that huge a difference in end
> results.)
> If you are seriously interested, I could dig up some old professional
> LEO papers advocating that 'school of thought' and I'm pretty positive
> that if/when I find them I can find "on-line" copies. ((Was it
> 'Violation directed patroling'??)
>
> Do recall, Tim McVeigh was caught for a fairly minor "tab" issue. As
> have been many serious criminals. The downside is many of the public,
> and the media, think the LEA's are paying too much attention to 'little
> things' rather than 'serious issues'. (Criticisims of 'chippie
> behavior', or citing for revenue, or filling quotas etc.)
> Those critical thoughts totally miss the fact that once a person has
> decided to do major crimes, they almost always quit obeying the laws &
> regulations on little issues also!!

well, the only light I have in these days, is that Carabinieri manages
to stop w/o killing & collateral damages a really serious case of going
postal, in the most wrong place and time (let's say, I have what can be
equated from "Defcon 5 to defcon 1 in seconds") and the aftermath and
shockwaves has led to the very unthinkable (a major Democrat Party
(Italy( "servizio d' Ordine" unit has substantially mutined:

> http://torino.repubblica.it/cronaca/2013/06/01/news/primo_maggio_la_ribellione_del_servizio_d_ordine_del_pd-57810059/

(in Italian) and I'm really worried, this was the very first line of
defense and intelligence Italian left has against internal terrorism in
the crucial city of Turin and the worst scenario is the resurgence of
the so-called "armed unionism".

Viva l' Italia,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[Keith W]

Which leads to an immediate pull and an extra charge of using a
non standard number plate appearing on the citation.

Besides which most of them simply dont work.

Keith

[David E. Powell]

On May 2, 3:42 am, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Fred J. McCall wrote:

Reminds me of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers who tried to report
the van they used for the bomb as stolen and collect the insurance.

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

The ones where 5 year old boys kill their 2 year old sisters with their
*Crickett rifle*, @tutall, I believe Fred means countries like that.

cheers....Jeff

[Keith W]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>> Incidentally, no one has to be ticketed or charged before
>> evidence is kept in the US. Even in the US, the police
>> prefer to build a case before charging people. The police
>> did not just decide to hold the car, they held it because it
>> was being driven uninsured.
>>
>

> For it to be evidence, there has to have been a crime. There was no
> crime because the police didn't ticket anyone, hold anyone, or do much
> of anything other than steal the car.

Ok Fred here is the procedure as laid down in the law its
really quite simple

1) ANPR flags the car as uninsured

2) The old bill pull them over and explain the
circustances.

3) Terrorist A says he does have insurance and the old bill
telephones the insurance company.

4) Insurance company says yes there is a new policy on
that car but the details dont match. This is where the form filling
error comes in.

5) This means the driver is NOT insured to drive the car but
the copper accepts the explanation and does not ticket the
driver. He cannot however allow the car to be driven on the
road so impounds the car on the basis that if the driver turns
up at the pound with a valid certificate of insurance the
car will be released.

Note similar laws have now been passed in the USA. In Dallas
police now have the right to impound cars if the driver cannot
show proof of insurance.

Keith

[Keith W]

> Except they don't because they have no way to know that.

Pay attention Fred

They have Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems hooked up
to the Insurance Database. Any plate not on that database flags up
an alert on the system.

Is this too hard for you ?

A message on a screen saying 'uninsured vehicle'
with the make color and reg no is a good way to know that
in my book.

Keith

[Keith W]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> And she did set off a bomb on school property without adult
> supervision of any kind.

A bomb huh , the equivalent of mentos in a coke bottle is a bomb.

Sheesh

Keith

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:dad6o81s7dffb5slm...@4ax.com...

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
>news:1rq4o81r4goscu0td...@4ax.com...

>
>"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
>>news:13p3o8l315u12kv4q...@4ax.com...
>>

>>>occupants had done nothing wrong? I'm glad I'm not
>>>British!
>>>
>>
>>The owner of the car did not have it insured, they held it
>>until the error was cleared up. Those who were using the
>>car
>>were given a break. What part of the scenario bothers you?
>>
>
>>That "once it was cleared up" they kept the car anyway.
>>Nobody was
>ticketed ("accepted the explanation" and "released the
>occupants"),
>but they "insisted the car remain with them". In civilized
>nations, a
>crime has to be committed (someone gets ticketed or
>charged)
>before
>the police can just decide to keep your property.
>

>"once it was cleared up" is a quote you pulled out of your
>arse. What was said was "until it was cleared up".
>

>Read for context, Pint-Sized. In the original context, the
>meanings
are identical.

I wrote the original. I said they held the car until the
mater was cleared up. You said they held the car after the
matter was cleared up. The meanings are not identical.

>
>The car
>was kept for good and valid reason as has been explained to
>you twice now.
>

>And what was that "good and valid reason", Pint-Sized,
>given that it
said the police "accepted the explanation" and released
everyone, even
giving them a ride.

SO you need to be told a third time that although the
occupants could be released, there was still the matter of
the uninsured car? You are a very slow learner.

>
>Incidentally, no one has to be ticketed or charged before
>evidence is kept in the US. Even in the US, the police
>prefer to build a case before charging people. The police
>did not just decide to hold the car, they held it because
>it
>was being driven uninsured.
>

>For it to be evidence, there has to have been a crime.
>There was no
crime because the police didn't ticket anyone, hold anyone,
or do much
of anything other than steal the car.

THe car was uninsured. My God, you're an idiot.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:ggd6o81u6c22rmjfi...@4ax.com...

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

>news:n2r4o8tsud2njp5tm...@4ax.com...
>
>"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Keith W" wrote in message
>>news:%Togt.121328$zK3....@fx17.fr7...

>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. If a car owner does not have insurance and I
>>> operate their car
>>> and I have insurance, that is legal.
>>>
>>
>>>Quite so and if you can verify your id and that you
>>have insurance they'll thank you for your cooperation
>>and send you on your way.
>>

>>Here, insurance on another party's car is a special rider
>>that costs 40 bucks a year for two drivers and is well
>>worth
>>having - it avoids the "insurance" charges from rental
>>companies and tend to prevent frivolous damage claims from
>>them.
>>
>
>>Here there is no extra charge for insurance that is
>>required by law
>(that being LIABILITY insurance, not 'own vehicle' damage
>insurance)
>and it is by driver and not by vehicle. In civilized
>countries car
>rental agencies are not criminal enterprises that will
>level
>"frivolous damage claims" against random patrons.
>
>In the US liability insurance is on the vehicle.
>

>Bullshit.

You are a liar

Good-bye

[tutall]

On May 2, 12:38 pm, Dean Markley <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 9:50:36 AM UTC-4, tutall wrote:
> > On May 2, 6:33 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That's in the UK.  He wondered if such a tactic could be used
>
> > > ELSEWHERE, in actual civilized nations.
>
> > Civilized nations that felonize schoolgirls for a little science
>
> > experiment?
>

> >http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2...
>
> >http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57582330-71/schoolgirl-tries-scienc...

>
> > What civilized nation(s) were you thinking of Fred?
>
> > Canada?
>
> You are changing the subject but hell, most schools in the US act like that.

Felony charges? Dispelled from the school? You are downplaying the
level of stoopid going on here.

[Keith W]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> Nope they have probable cause in that there is no active insurance
>>>> policy for the vehicle. The overt act is of course driving an
>>>> uninsured vehicle.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except they don't because they have no way to know that.
>>
>> Pay attention Fred
>>
>> They have Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems hooked up
>> to the Insurance Database. Any plate not on that database flags up
>> an alert on the system.
>>
>> Is this too hard for you ?
>>
>

> Pay attention Keith
>
> They don't have that other places, which was the point of the
> discussion - could this tactic be used in other countries.

Trouble is thats NOT what you said, your claim was simply
that they had no way of knowing the vehicle was uninsured.
You have been proven to be wrong.

Oh and by the way ANPR technology is widely used by
police forces all over the world

>
> Is this too hard for you ?
>

No but you are clearly struggling.

Keith

[Uncle Steve]

You losers are much more transparent than you believe you are. It is
pathetic watching you pretend to argue about a subject you don't
actually care about merely so you can slip covert barbs in your
pointless messages. The nail in the coffin, of course, is the
complete absence of adult reasoning, and yet you seem to want to be
regarded as adults instead of the shitburghers and pussi-bois you
really are.

Where have the intelligent people gone? I know they still exist
because they occasionally write books and such which prove that your
collective ignorant bullshit is not the norm of civil discourse.

So. What have you done with the educated, civilised demographic of
the West? Some of them ought to be accessing Usenet.

Such a great mystery.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
There should be a special word in the English language to identify
people who create problems and then turn around and offer up their own
tailor-made bogus non-solutions designed to completely avoid the root
causes of the situation under consideration. 'Traitor' might be a
good choice, but lacks the requisite specificity. One of the problems
with contemporary English is it lacks many such words that would
otherwise categorically identify certain kinds of person, place, or
thing -- making it difficult or impossible to think analytically about
such objects. These shortcomings of the English lexicon are
representative of Orwellian linguistics at work in the real world.

[a425couple]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

>>> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>Fred J. McCall wrote:

>>>>> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In England a terrorist gang ----
>>>>> But first they ---
>>>>Thats not how ---

>>>
>>> But they'll be stopping people without probable cause, which civilized
>>> countries don't allow. They either have to set up blocks and stop
>>> EVERYONE or else they have to observe some overt act.
>>

>>Fred, just an friendly attempt to impart information:
>>In the US, the legality of roadblocks varies from
>>state to state, mostly dependant on the state constitutions
>>and how they have been interpreted by each of the states
>>Supreme Courts.
>>
>>In other words, in many states, you CAN NOT stop
>>everyone on a public roadway, just to search
>>for some mundane violation.
>
> The US Supreme Court has held that you can.
> What state specifically outlaws roadblocks?

Dear Fred, As you know,
Unlike many posters/readers here in this newsgroup, we have
a written document (US Constitution interpreted by SCOTUS)
that protects some of our freedoms.

Reminder to you, that also, in our Federal System, our
State Constitutions may give further, or greater protections.
So, it sounds like in your state, your state & the US accept
that level of violation of your privacy via roadblocks.

That does not affect me in my state. My state protects that.
Easiest & most complete, is probably cut & paste from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint
"Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints
to be constitutionally permissible {at FEDERAL level !}, ten states
(Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety
roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them.
Two other states (Alaska and Montana) do not use checkpoints
even though they have not made them illegal."

[Kerryn Offord]

If someone had been "hurt" by the experiment. How long would it have
taken before the lawyers were out in force suing the the school where
the "experiment" took place?

[a425couple]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in...

>>> In England a terrorist gang were caught for driving without insurance.
>>> When they searched the car the police found the weapons.
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054
>>>

>>> I wonder if this tactic can be used elsewhere?
>>

>>The generalized 'tactic' (concentrating some police assets
>>on easily observed somewhat minor violations)
>>can certainly be used nearly everywhere,
>>and is used in many jurisdictions.
>

> But it has to be something visible. Lack of insurance is not.

Fred, do not bet on either of those!
(One of the problems of arguing on an international newsgroup,
is often the basic facts and understandings
((or 'frames of reference')) are different!)

(And that is why, I earlier tried to warn, with:
-(As I recall it, the UK and Canadian process for car
-insurance & inspections etc. work considerably different
-from the US system for car tabs.
-Very different base philosophy, not that huge a difference
-in end results.) )

#1, For example, in Canada's British Columbia,
the vehicles have to display an "inspection sticker"
year/tab current for that year/month.
In reality, that 'requirement' is having paid for insurance
and getting a 'sticker' from the insurance company.
So,, insurance, or lack of same, may be visable!

#2, Once a vehicle has gotten an LEO's attention,
(for many legitimate reasons) he can quickly do computer
searches that may find reasons to stop the vehicle,
that are not readily visable
(i.e. the owner, whose description matches the current driver,
has a bench warrant out for his arrest).

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:4gf7o898k6cg4ct53...@4ax.com...

>Except this one sprayed drain cleaner rather than Coke when
>it
exploded and the gas was hydrogen rather than CO2, exploding
rather
than just spraying out the top.

Reference please, the ones we are working from does not
support what you claim. Neither does anything else I found.

[Kerryn Offord]

On 4/05/2013 9:01 a.m., peter skelton wrote:
> "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
> news:4gf7o898k6cg4ct53...@4ax.com...
>
> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Fred J. McCall wrote:

<SNIP>

>>>
>>> And she did set off a bomb on school property without adult
>>> supervision of any kind.
>>
>> A bomb huh , the equivalent of mentos in a coke bottle is a bomb.
>>
>> Sheesh
>>
>
>> Except this one sprayed drain cleaner rather than Coke when it
> exploded and the gas was hydrogen rather than CO2, exploding rather
> than just spraying out the top.
>
> Reference please, the ones we are working from does not support what you
> claim. Neither does anything else I found.

http://www.howtodothings.com/hobbies/how-to-make-a-toilet-bowl-cleaner-bomb

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519081049AAHWpFF

http://www.bombshock.com/old-forums-archive/oldforums-explosives/works-bomb.html

It seems to need a specific brand of toilet bowl cleaner...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57582808-71/expelled-girls-bomb-toilet-cleaner-and-foil/

[Andrew Swallow]

On 03/05/2013 04:59, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> "peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

>> news:1rq4o81r4goscu0td...@4ax.com...

>>
>> "peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

>>> news:13p3o8l315u12kv4q...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 20:32:46 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>>> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> In England a terrorist gang were caught for driving
>>>>> without insurance.
>>>>> When they searched the car the police found the weapons.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054>
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if this tactic can be used elsewhere?

>> The car
>> was kept for good and valid reason as has been explained to
>> you twice now.
>>
>
> And what was that "good and valid reason", Pint-Sized, given that it
> said the police "accepted the explanation" and released everyone, even
> giving them a ride.
>
>>

>> Incidentally, no one has to be ticketed or charged before
>> evidence is kept in the US. Even in the US, the police
>> prefer to build a case before charging people. The police
>> did not just decide to hold the car, they held it because it
>> was being driven uninsured.
>>
>
> For it to be evidence, there has to have been a crime. There was no
> crime because the police didn't ticket anyone, hold anyone, or do much
> of anything other than steal the car.
>

The police have discretion not to prosecute a crime. A crime had still
been committed - driving without a licence. By not prosecuting the
police saved the cost of the legal fees and the policeman did not have
to spend the rest of the day filling in forms. The car would have been
returned when a valid insurance certificate was shown.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

On 03/05/2013 05:11, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>> Not to change the subject but there are clear covers you can buy that
>>> will prevent such cameras from recording your plate number.
>>
>> Which leads to an immediate pull and an extra charge of using a
>> non standard number plate appearing on the citation.
>>
>
> Except such covers are not illegal everywhere.
>
>

The covered numberplate will not reach the required readability standard.

Andrew Swallow

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:o7e8o859v833aa8f5...@4ax.com...

>Google for "girl expelled for bomb". Pick whatever
>reference you
like. Note that they all say "toilet cleaner and foil". I
misremember slightly, but it's essentially the same thing.
And yes,
they're dangerous. See:

>http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/bottlebomb.asp

You are presenting this as some kind of bomb justifying
expulsion form school and felony charges. From the
references, including yours, that's bullshit.

The snopes bomb is four times the size of hers and different
chemically (draino, rather than bowl cleaner). That is the
sort of thing you call honest.

[MrWeld]

On 01/05/2013 20:32, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> In England a terrorist gang were caught for driving without insurance.
> When they searched the car the police found the weapons.
>
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22344054
>
> I wonder if this tactic can be used elsewhere?
> Insurance companies have computerised records. Most countries have
> computerised registrations of cars and their owners. The two lists can
> be compared and any discrepancy investigated. The traffic cops can then
> stop cars without registration and insurance.
>
> Is not having car insurance sufficient grounds to get a search warrant
> to search a house and garage? Using the observation that where one
> crime has been detected the crooks are also frequently a second.
>

> Andrew Swallow

You can't really blame them. It's very difficult for terrorists to
obtain reasonably priced car insurance. The insurance companies put them
in the same risk group as professional footballers.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 02/05/2013 15:50, tutall ha scritto:
> On May 2, 6:33 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's in the UK. He wondered if such a tactic could be used
>> ELSEWHERE, in actual civilized nations.
>
> Civilized nations that felonize schoolgirls for a little science
> experiment?
>
> http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/may/1/florida-schoolgirl-charged-felony-science/
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57582330-71/schoolgirl-tries-science-experiment-arrested-for-felony/
>
> What civilized nation(s) were you thinking of Fred?

I'm not Fred, but, if you want my opinion, this is definitively a very
gross violation of Beccarian principles at their core rationale, so,
judging on this alone, one can rightly rule US out of civilized
nations... but America isn't only that pair bigot prosecutor and fascist
(US sense) shool boards.

(aside that "following the links" I get the impression that the
prosecutor isn't exactly "color-blind"...)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:54l8o853mlm85otsp...@4ax.com...

>I'm doing no such thing. I'm merely pointing out that it's
>a bit more
serious than 'mentos in Coke'.

Bullshit Fred. You have very clearly posted as I said above.

>
>The snopes bomb is four times the size of hers and
>different
>chemically (draino, rather than bowl cleaner). That is the
>sort of thing you call honest.
>

>It's the same chemically. Did you read all the way
>through? The
toilet bowl cleaners that work for these things have the
same active
ingredient as Drano.

Nonsense. The same active ingredient, different buffers,
different concentration, different diluents.

[Andrew Swallow]

On 04/05/2013 01:21, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Of course it will. You obviously have no idea what is being talked
> about, so you should probably stop now.
>

The police just inspect the numberplate with a traffic camera and show
the letters cannot be read.

Andrew Swallow

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:bfmao8d0oddleateu...@4ax.com...

>You've really never used any of those toilet bowl cleaners,
>have you?

Surrender accepted

[a425couple]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
>>> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

>>>>> "Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>Fred J. McCall wrote:

>>>>>>> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In England a terrorist gang ----
>>>>>>> But first they ---
>>>>>>Thats not how ---
>>>>>
>>>>> But they'll be stopping people without probable cause, which civilized
>>>>> countries don't allow. They either have to set up blocks and stop
>>>>> EVERYONE or else they have to observe some overt act.
>>>>
>>>>Fred, just an friendly attempt to impart information:
>>>>In the US, the legality of roadblocks varies from
>>>>state to state, mostly dependant on the state constitutions
>>>>and how they have been interpreted by each of the states
>>>>Supreme Courts.
>>>>
>>>>In other words, in many states, you CAN NOT stop
>>>>everyone on a public roadway, just to search
>>>>for some mundane violation.
>>>
>>> The US Supreme Court has held that you can.
>>> What state specifically outlaws roadblocks?
>>
>>Dear Fred, As you know,
>>Unlike many posters/readers here in this newsgroup, we have
>>a written document (US Constitution interpreted by SCOTUS)
>>that protects some of our freedoms.
>
> Yes, and that very body has held that 'rolling checkpoints' are
> perfectly constitutional.
>
>>Reminder to you, that also, in our Federal System, our
>>State Constitutions may give further, or greater protections.
>>So, it sounds like in your state, your state & the US accept
>>that level of violation of your privacy via roadblocks.
>>
>>That does not affect me in my state. My state protects that.
>>Easiest & most complete, is probably cut & paste from:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint
>>"Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found sobriety checkpoints
>>to be constitutionally permissible {at FEDERAL level !}, ten states
>>(Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas,
>>Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) have found that sobriety
>>roadblocks violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them.
>>Two other states (Alaska and Montana) do not use checkpoints
>>even though they have not made them illegal."
>
> That's quite interesting, since when I lived in Dallas they most
> certainly had them. I wonder what else they've gotten wrong?

I do not think "they" /wikipedia have it wrong.
I think you have it wrong.
And, even worse, you refuse to just walk away from a losing argument.

You wish to continue the disagreement, with your best evidence
being your pre 1994 memories??

Here are 3 additional cites:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/15/4487783/should-texas-have-sobriety-checkpoints.html
Dec. 16, 2012
"Sobriety checkpoints, allowed in 38 other states, have been outlawed
in Texas since the state's top criminal court ruled in an Arlington case
18 years ago that they are unconstitutional unless they follow guidelines
set by the Legislature, which has not set any guidelines."

http://www.ktbs.com/news/Texas-considers-sobriety-checkpoint-law/-/144844/18042616/-/17gaxgz/-/index.html
"The checkpoints are stops along the road where police officers can check
passing cars for intoxicated drivers.
Texas has not had any sobriety checkpoints since 1994, when the court
system ruled that the checkpoints were unconstitutional."

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html
Is another source that lists Texas among the "prohibits"

No wonder some liberals here like to beat on you like a pinata.

[Andrew Swallow]

On 04/05/2013 20:00, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>

{snip}

>> The police just inspect the numberplate with a traffic camera and show
>> the letters cannot be read.
>>
>

> Please show me where in the "readability standard" it says "must be
> readable by any random traffic cam at any angle".
>

The law does not need to, the number plate only has to be read from on
the road and places beside & above the road that cameras are fixed.

The British law

[quote]
The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001

Further requirements for registration plates11.—

(1) No reflex-reflecting material may be applied to any part of a
registration plate and the plate must not be treated in such a way that
the characters of the registration mark become, or are caused to act as,
retroreflective characters.

(2) A registration plate must not be treated in any other way which
renders the characters of the registration mark less easily
distinguishable to the eye or which would prevent or impair the making
of a true photographic image of the plate through the medium of camera
and film or any other device.

(3) A registration plate must not be fixed to a vehicle—
(a)by means of a screw, bolt or other fixing device of any type or colour,
(b)by the placing of a screw, bolt or other fixing device in any
position, or
(c)in any other manner,

which has the effect of changing the appearance or legibility of any of
the characters of the registration mark, which renders the characters of
the registration mark less easily distinguishable to the eye or which
prevents or impairs the making of a true photographic image of the plate
through the medium of camera and film or any other device.

(4) Section 59(2)(a) of the Act (regulations the contravention of which
attracts a level 3 fine) applies to paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of this
regulation.

[/quote]

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

> Congratulations on living in a police state. However, none of those
> rules would prevent or disallow the sort of cover I'm thinking of.
>
Of course it does. An absorber making the entire registration plate
black would break (1) where as a yellow mirror would break (2). A cover
has to be one of the two.

Andrew Swallow

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:am4bo8p7k5am15qcr...@4ax.com...

>Yes, I'll accept your surrender. If you want mine, pour
>some of that
toilet bowl cleaner on one hand and some drain cleaner on
the other
and see if you can tell the difference....

Try not to be silly.

Given a technical statement, in response to a silly claim,
you go straight to bullshit, and continue with more of the
same. You are about as good a chemist as you are at the
myriad of other things you pretend to know about.

[Andrew Swallow]

On 05/05/2013 07:32, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/05/2013 00:03, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/05/2013 20:00, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> {snip}
>>>>
>>>>>> The police just inspect the numberplate with a traffic camera and show
>>>>>> the letters cannot be read.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please show me where in the "readability standard" it says "must be
>>>>> readable by any random traffic cam at any angle".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The law does not need to, the number plate only has to be read from on
>>>> the road and places beside & above the road that cameras are fixed.
>>>>
>>>> The British law
>>>>
>>>> [quote]
>>>> The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001
>>>>

>>>> Further requirements for registration plates11.�

>>>>
>>>> (1) No reflex-reflecting material may be applied to any part of a
>>>> registration plate and the plate must not be treated in such a way that
>>>> the characters of the registration mark become, or are caused to act as,
>>>> retroreflective characters.
>>>>
>>>> (2) A registration plate must not be treated in any other way which
>>>> renders the characters of the registration mark less easily
>>>> distinguishable to the eye or which would prevent or impair the making
>>>> of a true photographic image of the plate through the medium of camera
>>>> and film or any other device.
>>>>

>>>> (3) A registration plate must not be fixed to a vehicle�

>>>> (a)by means of a screw, bolt or other fixing device of any type or colour,
>>>> (b)by the placing of a screw, bolt or other fixing device in any
>>>> position, or
>>>> (c)in any other manner,
>>>>
>>>> which has the effect of changing the appearance or legibility of any of
>>>> the characters of the registration mark, which renders the characters of
>>>> the registration mark less easily distinguishable to the eye or which
>>>> prevents or impairs the making of a true photographic image of the plate
>>>> through the medium of camera and film or any other device.
>>>>
>>>> (4) Section 59(2)(a) of the Act (regulations the contravention of which
>>>> attracts a level 3 fine) applies to paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of this
>>>> regulation.
>>>>
>>>> [/quote]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Congratulations on living in a police state. However, none of those
>>> rules would prevent or disallow the sort of cover I'm thinking of.
>>>
>>
>> Of course it does. An absorber making the entire registration plate
>> black would break (1) where as a yellow mirror would break (2). A cover
>> has to be one of the two.
>>
>

> Why does it have to be one of the two?
>

Physics. Non reflective surfaces cannot be mirrors.

A cover can have a mixture of parts but that law will get it too.

Andrew Swallow

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:j8vbo8ls9d6ek6m0q...@4ax.com...

>I accept your surrender.

As you are arguing that all things that hurt are the same,
the accusation of silliness has merit.

[Alistair Gunn]

Fred J. McCall twisted the electrons to say:
> Well, no. Think 'computer privacy screen' and get back to me.
> Remember, the screen is perfectly visible...

If the screen prevents cameras (either vehicle mounted or road side) from
reading the plate then it's violating the law. If it's not preventing
them from reading the plate then whilst it's probably perfectly legal
it's also 100% ineffective ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Bill]

On Sun, 5 May 2013 10:17:41 +0000 (UTC), Alistair Gunn
<palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Fred J. McCall twisted the electrons to say:
>> Well, no. Think 'computer privacy screen' and get back to me.
>> Remember, the screen is perfectly visible...
>
>If the screen prevents cameras (either vehicle mounted or road side) from
>reading the plate then it's violating the law. If it's not preventing
>them from reading the plate then whilst it's probably perfectly legal
>it's also 100% ineffective ...

It's only Fred, he's bonkers.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:4baco89m7k8lacug6...@4ax.com...

>I'm not responsible for the silly things you WANT me to
>have said. No
need to surrender again by making things up. You've already
done so.

No, you are only responsible for the idiocy you spout. I
lack the creativity to invent such superlative nonsense.

[Uncle Steve]

He's every bit the criminal hypocrite that you are.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
There should be a special word in the English language to identify
people who create problems and then turn around and offer up their own
tailor-made bogus non-solutions designed to completely avoid the root
causes of the situation under consideration. 'Traitor' might be a
good choice, but lacks the requisite specificity. One of the problems
with contemporary English is it lacks many such words that would
otherwise categorically identify certain kinds of person, place, or
thing -- making it difficult or impossible to think analytically about
such objects. These shortcomings of the English lexicon are
representative of Orwellian linguistics at work in the real world.

[Uncle Steve]

You implictly validate the nature and tone of Fred's rhetorical style,
which in itself is enough to identify you as just another hypocritical
useful idiot. That's my opinion on the matter.

All of you goddamned cowards who pretend this public environment is in
any way representative of civilized or intelligent discussion are
lying sacks of shit. Evidently your collective-obsessive need to
control what people see and read has taken an exponential leap from
the common, garden-variety censorial impulses of the willfully
ignorant.