snipped-for-privacy@movingvision.co.uk wrote: Its these reactionary
Hear Hear, but I fear you are too late. Too many people parrot the "If you´ve nothing to hide, you´ve nothing to fear" argument as if it clinches things.
Steve
I never said that the police act in an even-handed manner, but you're far more likely to be searched if you're a pissed up d*****ad shouting at the top of your voice in a city centre on a friday night than you are if you are a middle-aged male just wandering down a street at lunchtime on a weekday.
Well, I've lived at both ends, and I met far more violent shites at the lower end than I did at the upper end, walking around a city centre on a friday night near a sink-hole estate is asking for trouble.
However, I realise that living in the real world is no match to living in your fantasy life.
I don't like the nanny state either, don't know why you think that I do.
Well, anyone in a shiny top-condition defender or series is generally regarded as a freak so if I were you I'd leave it as it is ;-)
Noisy, rowdy, pissed and offensive behaviour should attract the attentions of the police, however the idea that one needs to be the archetypal Mr Middle aged Middle England but only in the Middle of the day to be worthy of letting past without harassment is too narrower a licence to have the freedom to exist without let or hindrance. For every rowdy antisocial type harassed by the police after 11pm there's a great many more who are also harassed for nothing more than being young, not wearing a suit and having a life that includes being out late. Clearly there are hot spots for crime and antisocial behaviour, though over all, within the community of the UK these are a small minority, the expedience police would like in controlling them should be an excuse to ride rough shod over the rights and freedom of the majority. Most offences are drink related and are endemic throughout the UK. Excessive drunkenness is part of the fighting Celt that makes up a lessor or greater part of our national DNA, according to recent genetic research. (Guess what? It turns out we're all much more Welsh than had been previously assumed;-))
Anyway, I digress. The idea that you have to be a middle aged male walking down a street at lunchtime to have a free pass in our society is sinister. Harass those actually committing an offence, not merely on the basis of racial and social profiling, that folks is pure Nazi Gestapoism, if one allows that then one is likely to get Adolf Blair or a Tory version of the same.
I can only comment on what is posted here, I don't know enough about Ian's reality bubble to cast aspersions beyond what he's actually written here. As for the limits of my own bubble and where it touches fantasy, few here would be in a position to comment on either. However I have had a life that's extended considerably beyond boundaries of either middle or lower England, or the triteness of it's limitations, by a considerable margin.
Being against the Nanny State and for Overbearing Police/Government Powers are incompatible objectives.
As they used to say in Nazi Germany;
"Halt, Halt! All is verboten, unt all dat ist nicht verboten is compulsory."
You are a d*****ad of the first order.
I'll let you make up what I think, you seem to enjoy it, I'd also suggest, no beg, you to think about emigration ASAP. It's all wonderful abroad, no crime, no nasty people telling you what to do etc etc etc.
If they're investigating a particular crime and therefore stopping either cars or occupants that match some sort of description then that's reasonable in my book, if they're trying to stop terrorism then random checks may be a slight discouragement so could almost be justified, but what we're seeing more and more is just a cynical attempt to give out tickets.
They stop cars or people they think may be a 'good bet' which is not at all reasonable, if you take that to it's conclusion you could be stopped while walking down the street and forced to give blood samples, prove where you got the cash in your pocket, or the shopping you're carrying.
Remember this is the same police force who now refuse to attend most burglaries or other 'minor' incidents because they don't consider them a 'good bet', and the same force who WILL attend a fight in a playground because they can mark it as cleared up and thus massage their figures. This is all going far too far. Greg
:)
In that case, those innocent people who may have a machete for lane clearance might be in spot of bother then...
Which is why I don't like the present knife law...
In message , Larry writes
Aye but for most people this is a financially scary proposition. So most people end up NOT carrying this sort of gear because its easier than proving your innocent once caught. Which is why I don't like the present law. And I don't think Mr Stabber gives a fig about it when he's about his business.
Watch their faces when you ask them
How much do you earn?
Do have curtains?
I asked to rifle through one woman's handbag once ;-) She didn't like that..
Good grief Ian !
Somewhat of an over reaction don't you think?
Indeed, which is why you can buy those nice telescopic wheel nut spanners that fit so nicely under the driver's seat, no one can argue it's unreasonable to carry one in the car and it's just as useful when you really need one...
It's interesting to note that people are back in the same position as they have been many times in history, having to disguise weapons of self defence because their government won't allow them to defend themselves. Greg
A friend in the force once remarked that it's best to have something that is reasonable in the context of the vehicle - so for a family saloon he recommended a golf club (and perhaps a bag of golf-balls for effect). An extendable wheel brace in a Land Rover seems a likely candidate.
Ahh - but then that becomes a concealed weapon - an altogether different proposition ;)
I have a rather hefty flute that would you would not want to be hit on the head with. Apparantly Buddhist monks carried similar items only made out of bamboo. Do you not hear the grasshopper at your feet :)
In message , Greg writes
Well that's the silly bit isn't it. If you have the intention to cause harm then banning you from carrying your knife is hardly going to make a difference is it.
Erm, I have also used my knife this summer to dig out the remains of the distributor central contact on the 109. There, back on topic.....
On or around Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:59:41 -0000, "Larry" enlightened us thusly:
no, 'cos some bugger keeps playing a bamboo flute.
As I understand it, the locking blade thing is not additional legislation! I believe it came about as a recent ruling(under existing law) that a knife with a locking blade could be construed as effectively having a fixed blade. Apparently this has set a precedent which plod are very happy with!
I could be wrong but I heard that within this new locking blade ruling, multi-tools(e.g. Leatherman, Gerber, Sog, etc.) are deemed to be a multi-purpose tool first, and that the knife blade was a secondary function.
Neil
(Reply via NG please)
Went to Paris over Christmas and visited the National Library. Had to hand over my little swiss army knife...
Fred
That probably wasn't anything to do with threats to people, in county council records offices you tend to have to do the same, no scissors, no knives, no pens, it's to protect the documents from absent-minded modification, cuttings, vandalism or in the case of libraries, theft of things like valuable maps or illustrations to feed the illegal antique book and map markets (I kiddest thou not).
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.