1403 posts • joined Wednesday 10th June 2009 10:54 GMT
Ah, but ...
... they know they *have* done wrong things, so they *do* have something to hide - that's what all the fuss is about!! ;-)
@ Richard 120
Yes, that's fine to a point, but it leads to attention for the noisiest, not the most worthy. Once the EC latched on to the hard precautionary principle, it made it so easy for anyone with an unproved axe to grind to get action in spades, on the basis of "Well, you never know, and you can't be too careful", instead of waiting to see what happens. This undermines the credibility of all "shouty" campaigns, regardless of merit.
Now, I'm not saying that this bee issue necessarily falls into that category, but species do undergo occasional severe reductions in numbers. What has changed is that we can see it more easily when it does because of the vast improvement of global communications. What may well be a perfectly natural process with, say, a two-hundred year cycle seems to be unusual because it is the first time we've seen it. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't monitor the situation and see if there is anything that might have changed, but wait-and-see is a valid response.
@ JC 2
Why would we want to do any of those things, exactly?
"... now all it needs is for one ****wit to download everything they've got some kind of read access to and send it off to wikileaks to make themselves think they're some kind of hero fighting for freedom." Who are you to say that such a leak *wouldn't be* a battle (major or minor) in the war to see that justice is done? Yes, there is going to be a fight to keep everything under wraps, but it has never really succeeded. You are perhaps too much of a pragmatist, concerned only with the difficulties you see, not the bigger picture.However, as someone else said, there is little chance that anyone is going to be bothered one way or another.
Thanks for the thanks, Matt ...
... in general, I loved my time looking after the mentally ill. It does rather take the sting out of your assertion that I know nothing about real life because I now have higher degrees and work in universities, though, doesn't it? I'll assume that you merely forgot the apology for accusing me of having a criminal record when I don't.
To save you further embarrassment, I'll just collect what I've said to you before, so that you have it summarised:
1. I'm from a service family - fire brigade and nursing, not police. However, I grew up in police/fire brigade housing and most of my neighbours were police officers, both uniformed and CID. My default position is to like and trust the police.
2. Policing has changed, and not for the better. There is a definite "them and us" culture, and it runs to the benefit of the police, not the public they are meant to serve.
3. I am now a legal academic, which I took up at least in part because I am tired of miscarriages of justice involving people with mental health problems, at least part of which comes from police putting clearly ill people into the criminal side of things, not the treatment side (i.e. arresting, not using place of safety orders). I do expect the police to know the difference.
Right - to answer your points. You missed the point I was making about the use of place of safety orders (incidentally, I agree with you about mental heath "care" reforms in general). Even when the police *did* know the patient (as you say, most of them are well-known to the various services) they tended to be heavy-handed. My best anecdote is getting a phone call at 3 in the morning when I was in charge of the unit, stating that the police were bringing in a "violent patient". Five minutes later, the lift came down, the doors opened, and a wall of blue uniforms shuffled out - six officers with a very small, well-known bloke who was known to be gobby in order to get a bed for the night. There was me and two female colleagues to greet them. "Watch him, he's dangerous", said the sergeant, handed the paperwork to me, and then all six got back into the lift! No attempt to see if we could cope, no history of what had happened, no "Goodnight All"! Brilliant policing, and only one of several similar stories that I and my then colleagues can report. Hence my concern that the police do not have sufficient people skills to do the job that they are supposed to do.
Regarding the "patient's and the public's best interests" - tell that to the three discharged patients that were lifted by the police and brought in merely because they were in the town centre when the mayor was due to show some other mayor around.
Regarding your comment about "should not have been out there in the first place", at least you are being consistent in your attitudes. At least, you seem to be saying that a person, once (or maybe twice) labelled as a criminal or mentally ill sufficiently to require hospital treatment, should always be treated as such. I may be wrong, and if I am, I apologise, but if it is your attitude, we have no common ground to continue discussion on that point.
Unfortunately, we are getting off the original topic here, and it is probably time to draw this conversation to a close because no-one else is reading this anymore. You have an attitude towards the police that I wish I could still have, but cannot. It may not be the fault of the individual police officers, but their management, but it makes no difference. I am (and always have been) a believer that it is better that ten guilty people go free than one innocent party be wrongfully punished. That is not changing with age (and, by the way, I'm not fifty yet, so less of the "Grandad, eh ;-)). You seem to lean the other way - let's just leave it at that.
Similar to me ...
...except my objections were that it was an interference with privacy *because* it was a government IT project, amongst other things.
A couple of years ago ...
... I arrived at an airport in either Portugal or Spain (I travelled a lot, and airports tend to blur into each other). Many of the locals went to the automated gates, and became trapped. I was through the manned gate before any of those were out, possibly because no-one went to check on them all the time I was in the queue! I wonder if the software is that same as at Manchester?
I'm beginning to wonder ...
... if "Titus Technophobe" and Rogerborg" are the same person, or different people from identical backgrounds. Whichever, they keep the threads going nicely.
It doesn't actually matter whether it is altruism or egotism; the result is the same. We, the public, are getting the information we should have in order to hold our representatives to account. Wikileaks is an unalloyed social good.
I've never had a "run in" with the law ...
.. if by that you mean "when was I last arrested". I am a law-abiding member of society, unlike the police. However, in a previous life, I used to deal with the police a great deal (senior nurse on a psychiatric unit, especially on night), and I never came across one that had made any attempt to understand the mentally ill people they brought in. They were prejudiced.
I recently had a car stolen. I reported it within three hours. I was treated with suspicion by the policeman that came out, and the correct information was not passed on. It seemed to be that the copper was prejudiced because of where I live.
I am not, nor ever have been, a member of the ALF, but I do donate to the RSPCA - does that count? Regardless, if a horse or any other animal i being used as a weapon, it is the responsibility of the handler, not the person that defends themselves, if the animal gets hurt. The inhumanity is on the use of the animal in a way that it has no choice in, not the legitimate attempts to avoid injury by it.
I have friends who are ex-coppers - they trust today's excuses for public servants with total and utter contempt.
Overall, I still think you are willfully ignorant merely because you have some family that are in the police, and are incapable of thinking outside your indoctrination. However, you keep hitting them, I'll keep fielding them.
Since you seem to know ...
it all, I'll leave you to your belief that your family constitute the only good coppers in the country, and that there is no truth in the fact the police being effectively a law unto themselves.
I'm watching the TV at the moment, and watching police impeding a lawful demonstration using atrocious tactics. Also, until police officers stand in the dock for the deaths of Jean-Charles de Menezes, Ian Tomlinson, Mark Saunders, Raul Moat and so on, I will not be giving them any sympathy at all.
Oh, and the IPCC - yeah, provably impartial ...
Defence solicitors *should* be with their clients first - a little thing called "the burden of proof". It is up to the prosecution to prove the crime - there is nothing that requires the defendant to help them at all. It is only a miscarriage of justice if there is a wrongful conviction (just about the worst thing that can happen in a society). Oh, and you should probably know that this within my area of expertise , both research and teaching.
People calling for police to report crimes - around here, if it wasn't for the fact that a crime number is required for an insurance claim, the police would only be called by the hysterical family across the road who only feel that they exist if they have a representative from an official body there for at least 12 hours a day. No-one around here trusts the police, and, to be honest, the results of calling the police, in terms of solving crime, are the same as not calling them at all.
I'm all for different views, but when they are willfully outside observable proof, it is just religion or delusion.
So nice ...
... to see so many people standing up and supporting the individual against the company.
Where's the facepalm icon?
What is this "real life" of which you speak? I am much closer to retirement than teenage, and I agree with JaitcH almost entirely. The police use too much force that they are not sufficiently answerable for. They are *not* your friend (unless you are one of them), and do not want to be. The modern police force has nothing to do with that of 30 years ago.
I suspect that it is you that does not live in the real world - you are stuck in the past when the police were servants, not bullies with warrant cards.
You are a willful apologist for the atrocious change in policing in the Anglo-Saxon world, and without any justification. The police in general *do* seem to treat the public as the enemy - I have had to deal with them in recent years when I have reported crimes and when I have been a witness to RTAs, and I have not come away from any of those contacts with a feeling of anything other than "I'm glad that's over". I am from a service family, and lived in close proximity with police for most of my childhood - I was brought up to trust and respect the police, so it is totally against my upbringing to have this attitude, but I would not go out of my way to help a policeman these days, regardless of what was happening.
The police really need to rethink their attitude towards the public, and to be seen to be answerable to the same laws as anyone else. There should be strict investigation of any complaint by truly independent people, with enthusiastic support from the police to ensure that the truth is discovered. The police should be neutral in investigations, working both for the defence and the prosecution, and being as assiduous in finding evidence that supports the defendant's case as well as the prosecutor's. Nothing else is acceptable, and until it happens, JaitcH is not paranoid, just seeing the reality of modern-day policing.
... I've got a big book of genetics that does back up the point.
There is no evidence of genetic transfer of psychological traits (despite what the determinist psychiatrists would have you believe). "Talent" requires more than having the requisite genes - it requires desire/opportunity to make use of them.
... after all, there is nothing else going on in the world. Yesterday, for instance: North Korea initiating military action on South Korea and Ireland putting the Euro in jeopardy with direct effects on the UK. However, at least a third of all news in the UK was about Westminster Abbey being the venue for just another wedding! Shed-loads of talking heads warbling on about how wonderful it is, statistics about how many royal occasions it has been used for, how it is more "intimate" (than what didn't seem to be said, but I wasn't paying attention). Utter, utter bollocks, but it does give the government so many opportunities to sneak in unpopular measures under the radar ...
...in a civilised country, everyone is entitled to a defence. Remember (at least in theory) innocent until proven guilty? How do you decide "knowingly defending the guilty"? By the fact that a jury finds the defendant guilty? What about appeals, especially many years later (eg Birmingham Six, Carl Bridgewater).
Perhaps you need to think this through a bit more.
@ David Wilson
You seem to make a logical leap in your argument that you may not have intended. There is a difference between, say, putting editorials, reports, and product reviews together (in the animal action instance above, having editorials about how animal scientists are evil, reports about arson, and product reviews of fertilisers, perhaps), and actually inciting someone to do it. For me the line is clear - did person A, who has sufficient power or sway over person B, say "Go and plant this bomb" ? If he did, then person A is clearly as morally and legally culpable as person B that went and did such a thing. Now, if person A is the editor in the example I gave above, and person B goes and plants a bomb, person A is not necessarily morally nor legally culpable in any sense. The chain of causation is broken, and person A is blameless unlessit can be clearly shown that there was some way in which person A wanted this result, could identify who would do it, and had some way of ensuring that it happened that makes it equal to saying "Go and do this".
This is important to realise if we are to maintain some semblance of free speech - as I've argued elsewhere, it is perfectly permissible in some circumstances to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre ...
None of my vitriol ...
... was because Jackie Smith is a woman, but because she was in my opinion stupid, insensitive, two-faced, and incapable of holding the office she had. That is my opinion of anyone of either sex that has held the position of Home Secretary in the last 25 years at least.
I agree with everything the OP said. I have a very good education - just about as high as you can get in this country, and in law to boot. What patronising comment are you going to come out with to me, huh?
AC: When the police work by the rules...
... I'll agree with your comments. Until then, anything that levels the playing field so that the ordinary person has a chance against the forces of "law and order" (ha ha ha) is just fine by me.
It is up to those that want law to be seen to adhering to it, otherwise it is anarchy.
There are going to be a lot of comments along these lines...
... so I would like to know what people like Ken Hagan use the internet for that makes their packets so much more important than a "freetard"'s. A good answer would, inter alia: comprehensively define what is a "freetard" and, equally, what constitutes a "good netizen" (or whatever word is preferred); why certain packets are more "worthy" than others; and then, based on the answers to the other parts of the question, explain why a two-tier internet is *objectively* justified.
I bet I don't get any decent answers ...
Modern 3D printers...
I agree with AC above. The latest 3D printers are quite something. I recently saw a video of the Up! 3D printer producing a fully functioning roller-bearing. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOEbZ98J1Ks and www.PP3DP.com.
... was taught stuff in junior school that turned out to be completely wrong, John Dee. The difference is, I know when to step back from it and move on.
I honestly wasn't sure whether you were troll, which I why I answered (if I was sure, I wouldn't have bothered). You clearly aren't, since you have replied. It doesn't change my opinion of you, though.
Yes, I do honestly believe that anyone who stands behind black letter law has no clue about the history of English law, or why we are far better off with a measured, proportionate response to any infractions. Since you seem to be a "black letter lawyer", to me, means that you do not support what this country has (or at least used to) stand for, and that you are a numptie, and an idiot. Legal absolutists are a plague on society as bad as those who treat the law with contempt.
Regarding people not being warned about potentially law-breaking activity - how far do you want to take that? Is publishing them alright? If yes, what about guides specifically stating laws that may apply to the activity - say, in this case, the Highway Code? What about the speed limit signs? Or are you just saying that people should not arm themselves with the relevant ability to remind themselves.
Your argument that databases of clearly visible street furniture should be banned is beyond laughable, especially since, somewhere else, you claim that satnavs warning the driver about exceeding a posted speed-limit is OK.
Regarding speeding - I have posted on here so many times. If you are interested, the posts are archived. Needless to say, in short, the argument goes that speed is the cause of *all* accidents, and, if you agree that emergency services should be allowed to go over a speed limit, you have immediately undermined the argument about "speeding" being an absolute crime to be punished without mercy.
Oh, and don't assume that I break the laws regarding speed-limits just because I am against the absolutist argument, and I won't assume that you are one of those arrogant bastards that drive as if they own the road because they are doing the speed limit.
Bravo, Marcus ...
... I absolutely agree. Maybe the "silent majority" on this topic should start kicking back and reclaiming our culture.
Of course it will ...
... and intention will be irrelevant, as with so many other truly wrong strict liability crimes. Thus, merely being within sight of the camera will make you liable to a fine. That will keep roads safe/generate revenue (delete as appropriate). It will probably apply to merely walking past one too, bringing a whole new range of people into the money-grasping claws of Westminster council (and then all the others that will quickly follow suit once they see the chance to make money).
I hate our current society, I really do.
... remember Stuart Harding who got a fine and a driving ban for putting up a sign warning about a speed trap! See www.telegraph.co.uk/news/.../Motorist-is-banned-over-speed-trap-alert.html.
Not only a coward...
... but a snivelling one at that. Just because it is a law does not make it right (and I am a lawyer).
Bravo, Gordon ...
... have one on me (when you aren't riding, obviously!)
OK, I don't really have time for this ...
... but here goes. A radar detector is no different from the databases of cameras - they merely inform the driver of an area which the local council or whoever have decided is dangerous enough to warrant a speed camera being put up. This gives advance warning of an upcoming problem - how can you possibly be against that? Equally, they give advance notice of mobile cameras which are sited in areas where there are known to be problems with speeding, perhaps due to the road design (30mph dual carriageway with poor speed signage, for instance), and therefore remind people of the speed limit (which many satnavs do anyway). In both instances, it means that accidents are avoided, since people do not suddenly jump on the brakes when they see the camera. How can you be against that?
Regarding speed and other infractions - well, just see any of my other posts here on the same topic. Black-letter law, and the numpties like you that advocate it, is an affront to everything this country has ever stood for.
I suspect you are just a troll, and I'm regretting answering you already.
... the way to screw the whole system is to "hit" the metal detector? And then when they've got it up and running again, have someone else hit it? Hmmmmm - can we have more details as to what "hit" means in this context? Are we talking merely brushing against the sides, or something a bit more forceful?
Worse yet ...
... those people are likely to start showing signs of anxiety whilst in the line, so the profilers are going to take them to one side for "intensive screening". Bad on a personal level for those affected, and bad for security - lots and lots of false negatives!
These f****rs just don't think things through.
All the airports in the UK that I have used have the shops on the far-side of the scanners. However, Prague airport has them before the scanners (one set per two gates), and so stuff bought in the airport is scanned.
This is an entirely disproportionate response to whatever threat is perceived by those that (presumably) know about these things. There cannot possibly be sufficient people committing the sort of crime in the sort of amount that warrants putting an entire population under surveillance. Unless, just maybe, they know that there are going to be events that will make enough people angry enough to threaten the country from within. In no particular order:
1. lack of electricity after they start switching off the power stations not long from now.
2. Insufficient food supplies - I've seen forecasts that many people in big cities are only 36 hours away from serious food shortages if the supply chain is broken.
3. Lack of water due to drought conditions and wastage.
4. Disruption of gas supplies.
No doubt there are others. None of these need terrorist action, and all would tend towards a population with trouble on its mind.
"Open door" analogy is inadequate.
The real analogy here is putting your belongings on the street with no-one to supervise them, and hoping no-one takes them. Once it is out of your building, it is at risk unless you do something to prevent it, whether it is data or your record collection.
.... what about the lads and lasses "over there"?
Bring them back home, concentrate on home defence, and stop fighting wars we cannot win. That should save a small fortune every year, a percentage of which should be put into returning us to the same level of civil defence readiness we had before Thatcher's "efficiency" savings. Civil defence is good investment, because it is not just attack that we need to be ready for.
... is defined as something the ordinary person would get severely penalised for, but police can get away with every time. Don't expect anything to happen to this lying shit - it didn't happen in the de Menezes case, and it won't happen here.
... there are two points of view. The science is far from settled. There are data pointing towards a colder, not a warmer, global climate, at least for the next few decades. That Lewis is willing to print stories that run counter to the accepted wisdom is a good thing, not a bad one.
It is entirely possible for two people to rad the same thing, and come up with differing conclusions. Scientists have been known to be cautious in their summaries in order to get papers published. There is garbage science on both sides - being critical does no-one any harm, and only advances the discussion.
There was no Godwin, but I was pointing out that there seems to be a lot of "these people" type talk on the forum. Once that gains traction, it is a "them v us" situation. There had been a poster that seemed to be saying that Roma can't be educated using the usual means, and so I was pointing out the dangers in that attitude.
The problem with arrest statistics is that they are self-fulfilling once typing gets hold. 1. Arrest person of profile X: 2. Get conviction: 3. Arrest another person of profile X: 4. Get conviction: 5. Concentrate on people of profile X: 6. Get more convictions ... and so on. The fact that the convictions may be easier to get because of some factor unrelated to X never gets mentioned. Maybe the people don't get adequate legal representation, or they don't understand the language, or they don't understand the law in that place. These don't matter - it is just the rate of conviction that feeds into a loop. That is intolerance.
There is only relevant factor in all crime - the fact that the perpetrators are human. Nothing else matters, unless it is to ensure more tolerance, not less, to groups of profile X.
It is seriously worrying ...
... that there are people with enough power, and enough determination, to keep persuading governments to bring in this anti-libertarian shit. I think it is time for El Reg to find and identify these people so that we know who we are dealing with, and can respond accordingly.