[cite]Posted By: Ketman[/cite]I think I must have missed the point, somewhere along the line. Terrorism needs to be stamped out so I have no problem with certain suggestions to counter this. As for general crime that's a bit different is it not. Perhaps if the old Bill spent more time & resources on real crime not speed cameras & harrassing motorists that would be a start.
Talking of speed cameras I noticed this
earlier today.
[cite]Posted By: Curb_It[/cite]From a female point of view rather than looking at the terrorism viewpoint i say yes if it meant less sexual assaults against women and children.
That's a good point. If everyone's DNA was on a register then the police would be much better able to catch rapists as well as other criminals but how many people would be willing to put their DNA on a national register? And if it is not complusory then it won't work.
I would have no problem with my DNA being put on a register. I can't see any reason why someone would object to that. Someone above said that they didn't like the "nothing to hide" argument but in the case of a DNA register I think it is a valid.
I would make it compulsory for a sample to be taken when you are born.
[cite]Posted By: Ketman[/cite]I think I must have missed the point, somewhere along the line. Terrorism needs to be stamped out so I have no problem with certain suggestions to counter this. As for general crime that's a bit different is it not. Perhaps if the old Bill spent more time & resources on real crime not speed cameras & harrassing motorists that would be a start.
But speeding is a crime and a dangerous one at that. More likely to be killed or injured by a speeding car than a terrorist.
Don't wanna scew your debate Henry as this is obviously a serious one, but the Speed Camera thing beggars belief. Reading that Kigelia link just made me laugh, so we have cameras to monitor cameras, what next Cameras to monitor cameras to monitor cameras? I'll bet not one of those Vandalised cameras was outside a school either. Think it was AFKA who posted earlier it's placement that counts. Why are they not outside every school ? I would not complain, that's where they should be, you as a Dad in particular should agree with that? They should not be hidden behind a tree or at the bottom of a hill in a place that is no real danger to anyone with almost no pedestrians. It's common sense surely ? Whilst it is a crime to speed, if you drive 35 miles an hour in a 30 zone should you be treated the same as a rapist or a murderer ?
you answered your own question. If you drive too fast outside a school then you might well be a murderer.
Speed cameras only catch you if you drive too fast. If you don't then they can't fine you. What's the problem? I don't believe all this "most are hidden". The ones I see are painted bright yellow and are flagged up 0.5 miles before you reach them. If you can't see them then you're not fit to be driving.
As for my son's school we have a lollipop lady who gets terrible abuse, horns beeped, cars and vans trying to drive around her for delaying their so important journey by 15 seconds.
[cite]Posted By: Ketman[/cite]Not sure what you mean Henry to be honest if they broke into where I live they would be most dis-appointed with whatever they found on my PC (Charlton Life) or my reading material (Football programmes), do not think they would find anything that in all honesty could be construed as a terroristy activity. I suppose they could try & infer my DJ equipment was some kind of nuclear device but other than that they would be seriosuly struggling.
but it would be ok for them to do that,as they were just making sure.
[cite]Posted By: Ketman[/cite]Not sure what you mean Henry to be honest if they broke into where I live they would be most dis-appointed with whatever they found on my PC (Charlton Life) or my reading material (Football programmes), do not think they would find anything that in all honesty could be construed as a terroristy activity. I suppose they could try & infer my DJ equipment was some kind of nuclear device but other than that they would be seriosuly struggling.
but it would be ok for them to do that,as they were just making sure.
And lock him for a few months without trial while they checked all the "evidence"
[cite]Posted By: kigelia[/cite]I have to say I am with Benjamin Franklin on this one.
Whilst I understand the need to protect the population from harm, I worry that the methods used to acheive that protection are more harmful than risks we face.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]you answered your own question. If you drive too fast outside a school then you might well be a murderer.
Speed cameras only catch you if you drive too fast. If you don't then they can't fine you. What's the problem? I don't believe all this "most are hidden". The ones I see are painted bright yellow and are flagged up 0.5 miles before you reach them. If you can't see them then you're not fit to be driving.
As for my son's school we have a lollipop lady who gets terrible abuse, horns beeped, cars and vans trying to drive around her for delaying their so important journey by 15 seconds.
Try driving on the A2 Henry towards London. The worst example of a hidden camera is just past Falconwood where the camera is obscured by a bridge. There are also strategically placed road signs and foliage from trees to obscure other cameras.
The Government try and spin it that they are "safety cameras." In that case surely they should be highly visible to warn that the stretch of road is dangerous and placed in areas where there are hazards such as schoolchildren, old people crossing etc.
Examples such as those I have quoted on the A2 lead me to think that the whole camera scam is revenue driven.
Drivers who abuse lollypop ladies (or men) are scum and probably support Millwall or Palace!
i my book this government scare tactics stuff is just the new religion. as i see it, religion was developed as a form of social control. now a lot (not all ) of people no longer follow religion devoutly they are looking for other ways to keep us all under control. if they can track when we fart we will know that there is no point in committing crime because we will always get found out. i mean look at the police. when they are drivning behind you, they know if your car is taxed, tested or insured. big brother is already here and it's staying.
I think the SPC were more psychos than psychics but they certainly laid into you before you committed a crime just in case as I found out on the Embankment one day. Ouch
That wasn't so much the SPG but the "Suss" laws, whereby the police could arrest someone on suspicion that they were about to commit a crime, but without having actual evidence.
I would have no problem with my DNA being put on a register. I can't see any reason why someone would object to that. Someone above said that they didn't like the "nothing to hide" argument but in the case of a DNA register I think it is a valid.
.............
My objection to it is that if my DNA came up as having commited a crime and I had no cast iron alibis for being elsewhere at the time, what then? What if some DNA evidence was planted at the scene of a crime, or there was a mistake at the lab or something similar that erroneously made me by definition guilty and I was unable to prove innocence?
In my opinion, it is all ultimately revenue driven.
If they can tag and have control of the people - then we are conveniently 'captive' in a virtual field like cattle grazing. We can be 'milked' for cash by government and other monlithical financial institutions at regular intervals - and woe betide the cow that breaks away from the herd.......they can be captured or 'put down' before they are through the gate.
Comments
Talking of speed cameras I noticed this
earlier today.
I would have no problem with my DNA being put on a register. I can't see any reason why someone would object to that. Someone above said that they didn't like the "nothing to hide" argument but in the case of a DNA register I think it is a valid.
I would make it compulsory for a sample to be taken when you are born.
But speeding is a crime and a dangerous one at that. More likely to be killed or injured by a speeding car than a terrorist.
Speed cameras only catch you if you drive too fast. If you don't then they can't fine you. What's the problem? I don't believe all this "most are hidden". The ones I see are painted bright yellow and are flagged up 0.5 miles before you reach them. If you can't see them then you're not fit to be driving.
As for my son's school we have a lollipop lady who gets terrible abuse, horns beeped, cars and vans trying to drive around her for delaying their so important journey by 15 seconds.
but it would be ok for them to do that,as they were just making sure.
And lock him for a few months without trial while they checked all the "evidence"
That sums up my thoughts too.
Try driving on the A2 Henry towards London. The worst example of a hidden camera is just past Falconwood where the camera is obscured by a bridge. There are also strategically placed road signs and foliage from trees to obscure other cameras.
The Government try and spin it that they are "safety cameras." In that case surely they should be highly visible to warn that the stretch of road is dangerous and placed in areas where there are hazards such as schoolchildren, old people crossing etc.
Examples such as those I have quoted on the A2 lead me to think that the whole camera scam is revenue driven.
Drivers who abuse lollypop ladies (or men) are scum and probably support Millwall or Palace!
For reference this, in a similar vein was debated last year and as a Related debate i feel it has real relevence to the thread.
(Special mention to Aliwibble's post that really made me, and i suspect a few others think!)
That wasn't so much the SPG but the "Suss" laws, whereby the police could arrest someone on suspicion that they were about to commit a crime, but without having actual evidence.
.............
My objection to it is that if my DNA came up as having commited a crime and I had no cast iron alibis for being elsewhere at the time, what then? What if some DNA evidence was planted at the scene of a crime, or there was a mistake at the lab or something similar that erroneously made me by definition guilty and I was unable to prove innocence?
philip k dick wrote the short story 'minority report' in 1956, he saw it coming 50 years ago. frightening stuff.
In my opinion, it is all ultimately revenue driven.
If they can tag and have control of the people - then we are conveniently 'captive' in a virtual field like cattle grazing. We can be 'milked' for cash by government and other monlithical financial institutions at regular intervals - and woe betide the cow that breaks away from the herd.......they can be captured or 'put down' before they are through the gate.