Tuesday, 21 April 2009

Sucking our blood

Will the government ever run out of new ways to fuck us over and rob our money? The Mail reports:

"Ministers are considering plans to allow police to stop motorists deemed to be distracted and hand out £60 on-the-spot fines.

And this month in Manchester, smart cars fitted with 'spy cameras' started operations to pinpoint 'distracted' motorists.

Guilty drivers receive a fine in the post without even knowing they have been photographed.

The scheme is expected to be expanded to other areas including Havering, East London, and Brentwood, Essex. Earlier this year, a mother was fined £60 and given three points for eating a chicken sandwich at the wheel. "

Ediri Tsekiri, 36, a researcher, was stopped by police near her home in Liverpool for not being in proper control of her vehicle.

Last month, Gary Saunders was stopped by police in the same city - for laughing while driving.

And Northumbria Police used video evidence from a helicopter and car to prove the case in 2005 against nursery nurse Sarah McCaffery, 23, who was fined £60 for holding an apple while driving.


alison said...

Hmmm. The 'laughing while driving' was probably major goofing around at the wheel of a car. Eating a sandwich or apple probably comes attached with way more than that snippet, probably not concentrating on the road at all and driving like a lunatic. All done under the nose of a copper. These tiny nos of crimes undoubtedly have more attached to them than is being scribbled up in that paper and at the end of the day all can be attributed to driving without due care and attention etc. If we don't want these apparently petty pick ups then we should get rid of that law altogether. Noone would want that though. It's just all part of the some grand screwy plot to trivialise CCTV.

I heard that the government has just implemented a restriction to all councils on their spying powers and slashed their budgets for it totally. So I think the Mail is spouting horsehit aimed at, as usual, whipping up public fear.

I hate councils as much as the next person. It's weird how local government was supposed to be more democratic and all that manure? But since councils are staffed with petty minded fascists the fault for that lies with us the voters. One day we may find these places staffed with reasonable people with common sense. Then things like CCTV which keep us safe, they just DO - and all these other issues will finally dissipate. Until then I'll always vote to keep the tools and aim instead squarely at getting rid of the human rot instead.

People suck.

Trooper Thompson said...

It's just legalised mugging Alison, chisling the public out of their cash.

"All done under the nose of a copper"

With these new cctv cameras EVERYWHERE is under the nose of a copper.

"So I think the Mail is spouting horseshit aimed at, as usual, whipping up public fear"

And the government doesn't whip up public fear?

"the fault for that lies with us the voters"

But that's all we are - 'the voters'. Once every few years we get to choose the cunt in the red rosette or the wanker in the blue rosette. Unlike the Americans, we are not officially a sovereign people, rather we are chattels of the Queen. I agree that we have a responsibility, and the general laziness and passivity of the public means that we are governed badly.

"Then things like CCTV which keep us safe, they just DO"

Show me the evidence! As far as I know there is none. The best way to keep safe is pack a glock in your purse. :)

alison said...

I don't get how you see a difference under a republic. Seriously. Obama is an elected monarch that you cannot kick out until you vote. If we exercised our constitutional monarchy we COULD kick out the elected prat that is all there for his, not his people's, glory. Each and every time we see fit. Consitutional monarchy for moi every time.

CCTV is a good idea. I will show you the evidence in a post soon I promise. And the DNA thing too. Okay :)

"The best way to keep safe is pack a glock .. :)"

You're just saying that to sound sexy. It worked ;)

BTW would you PLEASE come visit Daphne's site. She has a rocking site going on now.

Trooper Thompson said...

"Obama is an elected monarch"

Tragically this is largely the case, and it represents a profound corruption of the principles of the Republic. The role of president was precisely not supposed to be an elected monarch, although this was (I believe) what Alexander Hamilton would have liked (one of the Founding Fathers).

My point was merely to say that, whereas in America the people are *legally* sovereign, we are not. In reality, given the fallen nature of the great Republic, it makes no big difference I concede.

I will visit Daphne's site if you tell me the address (I'm sure she agrees with my glock comment!)

alison said...

We ARE legally sovereign. God it makes me want to cry how badly people misunderstand our constitutional monarchy and its complete fantasticness!. Man oh man oh man! You of all people too super Trooper. Sod republics. And it is so in human nature that it all becomes corrupt - which is why a constitutional monarchy is better. There to serve the people. And scared shitless and by ther skin of their teeth on that fact. Not their own interests a la Obama. Republics were an inevitable sham.

Trooper Thompson said...

"We ARE legally sovereign"

Where does it say this? We don't have a written constitution, at least in any succinct, understandable or meaningful form.

I have a US Constitution which fits in a shirt pocket. There is no such thing in this country. The Crown in Parliament is sovereign as far as I know. If you are right, which I doubt, and I am ignorant of the legal facts, then the reason for this ignorance is that there is no proper written constitution.

"And it is so in human nature that it all becomes corrupt"

Yes indeed, which is why 'the price of liberty is eternal vigilance' - something the Americans better start remembering and fast.

In any case, human nature being as it is, a monarchy will not be free from corruption inevitable or otherwise.