Awww nothing like envy is there.
Its like the welsh, despite been a shocking net drain on the UK purse, many of them think they should be separate country. That's fine, so long as we cut off all support, put up a big wall some land mines, and see if even the EU will let em join.
The phrase biting the hand that feeds it springs to mind.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Yeah! Damn them for being successful and not dragging themselves down to the lowest common denominator! You were one of those kids in school who jeered at the ones who did well on tests, weren't you?Originally Posted by santa claus
Who do you think generates the wealth of the entire country, if not the "successful" people? Perhaps you could explain?
But the fact that we have a police force (sorry, "service") that's undoubtedly better than in many countries doesn't mean we should be complacent about it, or they they couldn't be better still (especially if held to account), or take our eye off the ball, or let them encroach on our rights.
Not necessarily, but I'd argue that the police using their dominant position to expect people to pony up their personal details when they have no right to ask for them is an abuse, precisely because they have a position of power and authority and aren't making it clear where that power ends.
If they were to ask for details and explain that you aren't required to answer, or even to stay and answer their questions (in an "account" scenario) then I'd say fair enough, providing they take no umbrage when people decline to provide it. But the mere fact that in many situations they DO have the authority to require (rather than request) means it's an abuse of that power if they rely on their position to cajole details out of someone that would not volunteer them if they had a choice.
It's like this, Santa. If you were stopped and asked for your details, then based on what you've said, you'd supply them even if told you were not under an obligation to do so. Fair enough. So why don't officers always make it clear that you are under no obligation to provide details where statutory powers don't exist? Because they want details, and/or comments from people that they know they have no power to require them from, and are relying on the ignorance of the public as to their rights, and to the intimidatory effect that being stopped by police has on a lot of people ... most notably, those that have done nothing wrong.
I mean, crooks are likely to lie, or know when they have to cooperate, and to not cooperate, regardless of situation. People, like you, that are happy to comply will presumably do so even if they know they don't have to ... because if not, then they aren't really happy to comply. But for people that would not supply details if they knew they had a choice and are being conned or intimidated into supplying information they would not voluntarily and knowingly supply, and that they have a right to refuse to supply, then yes, it's abuse of position. It might be a small one, but that doesn't mean we should jut ignore it.
And it speaks volumes of the attitude of police to the public that they feel they can con or intimidate us into supplying information we would not voluntarily supply, and that attitude is behind a growing alienation between police and public. If the police want public support and cooperation, then they need to keep a firm grip on the notion that we are all innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way round, and act accordingly. And not all do.
mcmiller (27-02-2010)
Hahaaaaaaaaarr! If only you knew..
Your measure of success is financial wealth; mine isn't. I can't explain to you the things that only experience will teach you.Yeah! Damn them for being successful and not dragging themselves down to the lowest common denominator! You were one of those kids in school who jeered at the ones who did well on tests, weren't you?
Who do you think generates the wealth of the entire country, if not the "successful" people? Perhaps you could explain?
Well, keep fighting the good fight. The coppers need to be put in their place. Gawd.
Last edited by santa claus; 24-02-2010 at 05:15 PM.
And will we be running the country on the results of this happiness and warm feeling, rather than any kind of financial wealth?
Some do indeed, because they seem to think the uniform means we just have to do as they say .... such as the snotty little oik that breathalysed me and, on discovering it was negative but not by a huge margin, told me "that was close son., don't do it again". I don't appreciate being patronised by police, and I don't appreciate being called "son" by someone clearly about a quarter century my junior. A simple "that's clear, thank you for you cooperation" would have been nice, being told not to do it again when I hadn't done anything in the first place earned him a lesson in manners from his inspector.......
Well, keep fighting the good fight. The coppers need to be put in their place
The Animus is the one to ask about capitalism.
Strewth, it's like having a liddle yorkshire terrier yapping in your ear all day...
Heehee, you make him sound like Robocop.
Oi, I'm from Yorkshire!
PHP Code:$s = new signature();
$s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display();
Well sidestepped Santa. Your ability to defend your points is noted.
Down boy.
Yeah, sorry about the sidestep; the subject matter is just about cooked though.
Whoops, seems like that memo telling people to stop being heavy handed seems to not have filtered down through the ranks...
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/502...ington/?ref=mr
"You're a stranger in Kidlington" - what a bloody joke, Kidlington has a population of nigh on 14,000. Oh yeah and S1 of Pace? Don't make me laugh! How is a camera an article that could be intended or adapted for criminal damage!?
Just as a side note, a good summary of what the law can and can't do specifically with regards to photography is noted here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-u...009/index.html
But yeah, i enjoyed that debateBring on new differences of opinion!
EDIT: Ok, someone posted that on the previous page - ignore!
Last edited by Whiternoise; 27-02-2010 at 02:17 AM.
Wow! that is a joke, i really cant be believe someone could be that arrogant and ignorant!
More importantly videos like are going to be even more common place now with cheap dv cams mobile, phone recorders etc.. and all this serves to do is alienate the police force from Jo public when they should be working with people and helping them not bullying them.
It appears that photographers are having a battering at the moment with this reported incident ;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...aedophile.html
Last edited by Lee H; 27-02-2010 at 06:29 PM.
Well, assuming that the report of what the man said that the police said is accurate, and given that it's in the Mail that might be a stretch, then the police officer(s) in "'They took my details and said they had the right to remove the picture from my phone." is the type of ignorant and overly officious pratt I was referring to earlier, that not only alienates the public but gives other officers a bad name.
So for the benefit of that officer .... no you bleeping don't. Not ever, unless you have a court order. Got it? Just because you're in a uniform does not give you the right to make up laws to impose your will on us. That makes you either ignorant and badly trained, especially given the amount of publicity this has had, or worse, arrogant and a bully for throwing your weight about anyway.
Wow, an apology is due. The threat of deleting the picture aside, what the security guard said with virtual no basis is well out of line.
Feckin' muppets both of them!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
