In message <email@example.com>
AndyC the WB <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>>>> "beamendsltd" == beamendsltd <email@example.com> writes:
> beamendsltd> Being nicked for speeding is breaking the law - no
> beamendsltd> civil liberty issue there.
> It is when you are forced to supply the evidence for your own
> I refer to the process whereby you have to sign and return the "Notice
> of Intended Prosecution" (NIP) to confirm that you were driving.
> If you were legally obliged to provide evidence against yourself in a
> real trial, you'd get off on the grounds that the evidence
> contradicted the European Convention on Human Rights.
Ah the Good 'Old European Convention on Human Rights, an excellent
process for protecting the guilty from the innocent.
> beamendsltd> tuff-titty - no one defended my rights when my
> beamendsltd> pleasures were under threat, so why should I care
> beamendsltd> about their problems.
> Well, that's exactly the attitude that lead to no-one caring about
> your pleasures in the first place.
That attitude has only come about recently - I have always been
at the front of the queue to defend peoples right to do as they
choose (within society's "norms") - but I've had enough. I'm going to be
stopped from going to the pub (or anywhere else) in three years time,
I'm being told my car is unacceptable, I'm being told where and when
I can drive, I'm being told what colour front door I can have (well,
if I lived in the Peak Park I would), I'm being told what I can
and can't eat, I'm being told what utensils I shold have in my kitchen,
etc etc - so now bugger 'em I say - and when they moan about their
rights being infringed I just laugh - they've got it comming!
>I agree though - even though I'm
> about as anti-smoking as you can get without throwing buckets of water
> at people, I don't advocate banning it, simply because there are too
> many people in this world that want to ban everything they don't like.
But I don't hear you actively defening ones right to make ones
own choices - inactivity is effectively being anti - without wishing to
inclur Goodwins Law, inactivity allowed events in Europe to happen
in the 30's, and is allowing the nanny state to take over here - one is
either a supporter of an individuals rights (and resposibilities) or
not - being selective about which rights to support or not just
opens the back door....
> While I'm aginst the rigid enforcement of speed limits - it leads to
> poor concentration and bad driving - this is a much bigger issue. I
> can't see ANYONE being in favour that lets the government track the
> whereabouts of every individual in the country. It's only then a
> matter of time before this becomes admissable as evidence in court.
> And then, as with speeding, it will be up to the registered keeper to
> prove that someone else was driving, or they take the rap.
I've nothing to hide, so no problem. The Goverenment has always
been able to track us, they are just getting faster and more accurate.
Indeed, it has many plusses - if my motor is knicked it would be a lot
easier to find. If I was suspected of being involved in a crime I could
demonstate my whereabouts (or at least that of my car) - equally, if
I wanted to disappear I could just catch a bus (and not use my mobile,
or credit cards!).
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems