from england, some odd news

Post Reply New Topic

Exactly. It is very reasonable. British people value their right to freedom from guns.



That is because you have no first hand knowledge of the situation. The only evidence that the police have this policy is the word of a C-list celebrity who has had more publicity over this than her agent could ever have come up with. I saw her talking about it on tv a while back. She gave the impression that there were men in her house, stealing her belongings and threatening her and her child and that she fought them off at knife point. When the facts of the matter are that there were 2 teenage children in her garden, who looked through her window.

But if it is as you say that Hertfordshire police are backing away from an unpopular policy, please can you provide some proof that this is their policy and that they have acted upon it. It should be fairly easy as the records of police actions such as this are open to the public.



There are organisations within the UK that oppose the use of CCTV. The link I provided was a report on the findings of one these. But the fact is that the majority of people in certain areas want the cameras and so they stay.

Again, this wouldn't be an issue for you if you had first hand knowledge of the country you are passing judgement on. You would understand the amount of time and effort the public put in to try and get the councils to put cameras in. You would understand the fact the councils do everything they can to get out of it because they don't want the expense. And you would also understand that as soon as the public in a given community relax their pressure the council stop operating the cameras in the hope that no one will notice.



That is so funny. My own bias regarding a reliable news source! It's not bias, it's fact. I love the Daily Mail, it's the only paper I bought when in the UK, but I'm not under any illusions about what it is. It is a sensationalist newspaper. The guy who founded it, Alfred Harmsworth, made no secret about the fact that the purpose of the Daily Mail was not to report news but to entertain the masses.

Sincerely, can I ask you a question? Do you really think that your perception of Britain is more accurate than that of people who have actually lived there? And another one, if you do, does that mean that the perception I have of America from watching Fox News and Cops is also accurate?




Evidence?

I would be genuinely interested in seeing an example of this please.

It is widely acknowledged, even by the BBC themselves, that they have a left/liberal bias in how they report. Naturally that is used by the Labour regime when certain things are publicised , or "leaked". I do watch the BBC news in order to get a full picture of events from different perspectives, and it is obvious when some things are reported that fundamental questions that should be addressed are often completely ignored. This leaves the less well-informed with a rather narrow perspective on the issue often in favour of government policy.

But can you give a specific example that I can look at? The reason I ask is because in my 30 years of living there, I never saw any evidence of this. In fact I thought that the Kelly affair had clearly shown that the BBC would not kowtow to the government.

I did notice however that they didn't go into much detail with their reports and therefore didn't answer all my questions. But this was evident in everything they reported on and appeared to be down to poor reporting rather than biased reporting. I also thought they were very slow and sometimes way behind other channels on what they were covering.

A few recent examples of mad legislation restricting personal freedom:

Hunting with hounds: now illegal.
Re-wiring your house: now illegal without going through local government bureaucracy.
Hate crime: some are more equal than others. Don't offend the chosen ones!
Disposal of household waste: put the wrong items in the wrong bin and they'll prosecute you.
Speed cameras: if it were just a tax-raising exercise we could live with it, but they'll also take away your driving licence after several relatively minor infractions often resulting in loss of job. The government once said they'd never be used on motorways -- never believe the government.
Working with kids: go anywhere near them and you now need government clearance or a certified escort. Best keep well away.
Health and safety: I won't go there, I haven't time.
Guilty until proven innocent: camera captured motoring offences (this now includes parking offences, and driving in bus lanes)
Selling your house? Oh no... you'll need a government-approved inspector to issue a report.
Inland revenue fishing trips: not long ago the IR could only investigate you if they had grounds you'd been doing something dodgy. That's now not the case. They can randomly select individuals or businesses to investigate (called a fishing trip). This can cost a lot of money defending even if you're innocent.
Do you know how many organisations have a right to enter your house by force? Try finding out; you'll be surprised.

The list goes on.

Look at how immigration is covered by the BBC. Also, consider how Nick Griffin was treated by the BBC on QT. These are issues that influence legislation that ends up curtailing our freedom. But that link is rarely highlighted.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I don't see how the BBC have covered immigration any differently from other channels. If they are, can you show where? As for Nick Griffin and QT, what aspect of his treatment do you oppose? The fact that he was included? The fact that he was asked questions he didn't want to answer? Or the fact that he was allowed to show himself up as a complete fool?

There are better uses for my time than wasting it talking to you, Dox. That's all.

Clearly your ability to critically appraise sources of information isn't that sharp, then. One example I can quickly think of is in the reporting of government policy that is supposed to be restricting foreign workers coming here. I remember one week this being covered in the context that it was addressing the concerns of many people without even a mention that the policy would have no impact on foreigners from Europe travelling here.


The programme became a lynching for Griffin. The whole show was about attacking him and his policies -- that is not the usual QT format, nor was he informed of the changed format before appearing. Have the BBC ever done that to a figure on the left? There are plenty who are deserving. The programme planning appeared to be premised on the leftist belief that anyone with right-wing views is no better than Hitler and is not deserving of the respect normally afforded to fellow human beings.

Nothing mad about this unless you support the tearing apart of animals for fun. It tooks decades of public pressure for the government to give in to this.



If you had lived in the UK and seen some of the DIY electrics you wouldn't consider this mad. The British enthusiasm for DIY far outweighs their ability to carry it. Now I'm fully behind an individuals right to electricute themselves if they so choose, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of house fires are caused by faulty wiring and in a country that is so densely packed, the rights of neighbours to live have to outweigh the rights of homeowners to die.



Who is more equal than who? Genuinely don't understand what you mean by this. Unless you do actually mean that preventing people from attacking others because of their race/religion etc is mad. Do you?



Haven't come across a single genuine example of this but have read about it in the Daily Mail.



Why is this mad? You break the law and speed and you get points on you license. You repeat the crime and you get more. Repeat it enough times and you lose your license. And that would then be the governments fault? I thought you supported personal responsibility?



Again, I'm not sure why you think this is mad. Do you think that people with a history of abusing children should be allowed to work with them?



I will. I studied Health and Safety law at university. It is pretty sound. What is moronic though is people's interpretations of that law. I know this first hand as I am currently going through a court case over discrimination on the grounds of Health and Safety. I know that I will win because as I say, the law is sound, but even sound law can be misused in the hands of idiots.



How is this guilty until proven innocent?



No you don't. You need a Home Information Pack. This is the document which shows all the information a seller must provide the buyer, such as evidence of the fact that they are actually the owners of the property. You can put this document together yourself, it does not have to be a government approved inspector.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndComm ... /DG_171807



And this differs from other governments how?

(By the way, I assume you are aware of PAYE and the fact that most Brits do not file tax returns)



Only the police do.



I'm still waiting for it to start.

The normal format for QT is for the audience to question the panel on the big issues of the day. The biggest issue of the day was the fact that Nick Griffin was on question time and that he represents a racist, white supremacist party. As for respect, I always feel that it should be earned and someone who doesn't show respect to fellow human beings should bleat when they don't get shown it either.



So a request for specific information rather than generalisations results in a personal attack. And I thought we were having a grown up discussion. I'm too old for the playground so won't be commenting further on this thread.

It seems mother really doesn't know best in this case; so at risk of being on the wrong end of a spanking:

Foxes are vermin. Killing them is necessary. It's not the business of a bunch of hand-wringing liberals to tell people how to control vermin on their own land.


I'd dispute that the fault of the person installing the wiring is to blame for the majority. More likely overloaded sockets, vermin damaging wiring and general carelessness are to blame. If I want to carry out work inside my own property it shouldn't be the business of the state.


I mean minority groups get preferential treatment. There are already laws in place to criminalise assault; hate legislation means any minority individual can claim a racist or homophobic comment was made during an attack to ensure the perpetrator gets a harsher penalty.


It happens.


I can assure you that often you can be in a position where you don't know what the speed limit is as speed limit signs are often missing, too few in number, or obstructed. More important is the question of proportionality. Is it reasonable that someone loses their license and job for going 5mph over a speed limit on a clear road at 5a.m? You'd probably get off with less for theft. Is it a reasonable allocation of resources to have cameras litter the sides of our roads to catch those guilty of minor speeding offences when the police can't keep your house from being burgled?


People should be innocent until proven guilty. Those who are deemed a threat should be monitored on a parole type basis. When I was a kid I used to get taken out to pursue an interest of mine by adults who worked with my father. Kids these days are denied that. This type of legislation is just a knee-jerk reaction by politicians to placate ignorant Sun readers; very similar to some of the gun legislation.


The problems stem from laws put in place in the name of health and safety, and again to placate ignorant Sun readers.


A picture of your number plate is taken and you are summarily issued with the fine and points on your licence. A picture of your number plate is not proof that it's your vehicle.


You still have to get some snoop to give you an energy rating. And why the hell does the government need to get involved like that in a private transaction?


In Britain, we didn't used to measure ourselves by what other countries did: we used to be The benchmark. The fact is that we didn't used to have to submit to this, and now thanks to the corrupt regime of Blair and Brown we do.


All businesses file tax returns. Many individuals do, as well. I'm fully aware of how PAYE works.


And a whole bunch of others. Bailiffs, RSPCA inspectors, utility providers (gas, water, electric) and local planning authorities. I read an article about this a few years back and they listed dozens (possibly hundreds).

Last edited by ascan on 22 Mar 2010, 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

The comment was an observation based on the evidence presented. You shouldn't be so sensitive.

Culling vermin can be accomplished without making it a blood sport. If you want to ride with your hounds, by all means do so. But one could hardly demonstrate that the traditional practice is a cost effective way of dealing with the economic impact of these animals.



If someone's work jeopardizes the fire safety of that person's home, and the homes nearby, then it certainly is the business of the State. Building sytems like electrical, water, sewage and HVAC all have the potential to create damage not only on the property concerned, but across other properties as well. While civil litigation provides some protection, that is cold comfort to the person who has lost their home to fire caused by their neighbour's shoddy wiring job, who must now wait out the courts for relief (assuming, of course, that there are assets upon which to execute judgement at the end of the day).

In general terms, I take the view that prevention is a superior public policy approach to reaction.



Oh, that hoary old chestnut again. The racist attacker violates not only the victim's bodily integrity, but their emotional integrity as well. A victim of a gay bashing is twice injured. These are real circumstances with which the simple criminal law is ill-equipped to deal. Further, it is a legitimate public policy objective to take crimes that are particularly motivated by hatred of an identifiable social group, and demonstrate that while hatred is a protected opinion, and the oral expression of that hatred is protected speech, violent expression of that hatred is not protected behaviour.



Q.E.D? The disposal of household waste is a public service. If you are prepared to pay for someone else to sort your rubbish, then by all means, petition your local council. I will happily continue to sort my recyclables, as my municipality requires.



Are you truly suggesting that ignorance of the law is now an excuse?

Your issue of proportionality is better founded, but accountability dictates that it must ultimately fail. It is well established that the doctrine of de minimus non curat lex is not a valid doctrine within the criminal law of Common Law jurisdictions. Every driver is presumed to be aware of the law, and responsible for the operation of the vehicle.

As for resources, your argument is specious. Every police officer that is freed from road work by the presence of automated systems is a police officer that is available for other duty. More police officers being diverted from property crime prevention to replace photo-radar simply exacerbates the mischief that you have identified.



Criminal record checks for workers and volunteers with youth are a minimal intrusion for the protection of children. Furthermore, it maintains the presumption of innocence--if you have no criminal record for an offence of interest, you are free to work with or volunteer with youth. This in no way restricts the opportunity of children to freely associate with individuals known to their parents--a child can still pursue an interests with co-workers of the child's father. But criminal record checks for people in roles of teacher, scout/guide leader or youth worker do provide a level of security with respect to third parties over whom parents have less control.



Again, Q.E.D? Absent some examples, it's impossible to debate this.



It is, however, evidence that the subject of the photograph is your vehicle, and the law is free to assign such evidentiary weight to that evidence as it merits. Furthermore, like all rebuttable presumptions, you are free to aver evidence to rebut the presumption. Was your number plate removed from your vehicle? Can you demonstrate that your vehicle was in a different place at the time? If so, then by all means, make your case.



Because property is one of the most fundamental legal concepts in English Common Law. The vast bulk of English law up to the 17th century deals with property, and the rights attentdant thereto. The concept of property as it is understood in England and Wales is entirely an artificial concept dreamed up within the medieval Kingdom to control the economy. To this day, a landowner in England and Wales only owns property to the extent that the Crown has granted tenure.

But to the particular issue: Energy consumption is a significant public policy discussion throughout the world, and domestic energy consumption is a significant area in which efficiencies can be found. It would be open to Government to require inspection of each and every dwelling within the United Kingdom and set an arbitrary time frame during which that must occur. Or, they could take the sensible approach that when a property changes hands, it is the least obtrusive time during which to undertake inspection. Most buyers want a building inspection so that they are aware of the condition of the improvement, and most sellers are happy to cooperate with potential buyer's wishes. It is an intrusion during a period in which intrusion is more normal for the occupier, and thus, a more minimal intrusion.



Actually, taxpayers have always been subject to strict liability from IR. Typically, taxation authorities have enjoyed the power of assessment and revision in respect of any taxpayer, or legal person who might be obligated to remit tax. Obviously, in the 345 years since the creation of the Board of Taxes, the powers of tax collectors have varied. But generally speaking, tax officials have greater powers to assess and enforce the law within their specific area than do the the police generally.

As for Great Britain being the benchmark, that was certainly true for England in 1215, and again with the development of the more modern form of Habeus Corpus in 1679. But on the princpal of, "what have you done for me lately," other Common Law jurisdictions have been teaching England and Wales a thing or two about the rights and liberties of the citizen for a few centuries, now.



In this one, you are correct. But every one of those rights of entry is purposive. One may debate whether or not it is appropriate to allow bailiffs to execute court orders on someone's land, but I suspect that's a losing argument, since bailiffs have been executing orders on private land for 8 centuries, or more.

The debate might be more engaging around the subject of RSPCA inspectors, but at the end of the day the question is, "to what degree does Government have the authority to impose public policy upon the citizen." In a modern, pluralist State, that is not an easy question to answer.

It should be borne in mind, however, that Blair & Brown have finally provided the United Kingdom with a truly independent judiciary, a body which will likely have a better opportunity to hear and pronounce upon precisely that question.

Rather fitting that a Canadian should defend the state's right to cause as much inconvenience as possible. In your above missive you do not consider that the legislation discussed is all relatively new in the UK and of mainly minimal value, apart from a quick-fix of short-term political capital for the ruling Labour government. Each point on its own may be of minor consequence, but when considered as a whole the burden placed on an individual citizen significantly detracts from the tangible freedom they enjoy as they go about their daily business. You have made a reasonable defence of some points, but it's possible to do that with just about anything. Where do we stop with these things? Your reply indicates not only that you see it appropriate to legislate to prevent harm to property, human life and emotion, but also to impose a debateable morality on those going about their business on their own property. The issue of hunting with hounds is a moral issue involving animals, and one where a large number of people do disagree with your view. In cases like this the rational thing to do is to allow those who wish to hunt foxes to continue on their own land. Afterall, people enjoy blood sports. Why shouldn't they?

To briefly tackle a few of your wilder statements, you don't really believe that emotive stuff you wrote about "hate" crime? I really can't see that if I get a kicking from a group of thugs it's any different to a minority person getting the same treatment with a few minority-specific insults thrown in. The word "hate" is rather misleading here, too -- deliberately so on the part of the state -- for the offence doesn't have to be about hate, merely the uttering of words that could be construed as hateful. I would expect many of these incidents are more related to a thug's attempt at relief from boredom and ambivalence; but sticking the word "hate" in there makes it look like government's doing something for those poor downtrodden minorities.

You accused me of using ignorance of the law as a defence, and I'm aware the law holds the unreasonable view that an individual should know the exact geographical location and extent of the millions of speed restrictions across the country. However, most normal people expect that speed restriction signs should be adequately displayed and maintained at the side of the road on which they are travelling. Is that not reasonable?

I could provide counter arguments to the other points you raised, but that would be pointless as we do not disagree that there is some value in each of the other areas of legislation discussed. Where we differ is on the impact of that on the balance of personal freedom versus safety, security and morality.

If you subscribe to the "mischief rule", then all legislation must be understood in the context of the harm that it is meant to address. That being the case, the relative novelty of legislation is no defence against its purposive validity. You may believe that it is of "minimal value," but that is of no real consequence in the face of Parliament speaking on matter.

Personal freedom is an illusory concept. We are born into a system of law that limits our personal freedom every moment of our lives. That much is axiomatic. I suspect we both agree that there are restrictions on personal freedom that are necessary and beneficial to a peaceful, well-ordered society. Criminal prohibitions against offences against the person, for example.

So the root question remains, what is the social purpose of Administrative Law, and to what extent does it have a place in a free and democratic society. Let's both ditch the hyperbole and have the valuable conversation, rather than the pointless one.