| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
akamaisondufromage 
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
 Posted: November 03 2010 at 14:15 |
 Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
I daren't answer this question you never know who is watching.
No we're not a 'police state' not like N Korea Cuba Zimbabwe etc But it does worry me the surveilance cameras and police powers to combat terrorism. There is little point fighting terrorism by removing freedom - it just means we've lost the battle. I think its a disgrace that we cannot demonstrate outside parliament for example.
BTW the argument that Red light Cameras are a form of money making taxation is idiotic. You break the law you pay the price. We get the usual 'always picking on car drivers' argument here tis bollocks. If you had a fine for breaking windows for example you wouldn't call that a money making tax.
|
So the fact that yellow light times are deliberately shortened at camera equipped intersections to "catch" more offenders is to punish people for the great crime of being in a red light for .5 s?
It's idiotic to think they exist for protection or safety or whatever bs reason they're sold on at the time.
|
How do you know this? I expect its more due to you going too fast to see the amber lights. Red means stop as far as I remember not speed up to try and get through before they change. They are there for safety reasons cos usually they are followed by 'traffic' coming from another direction. Usually me trying to cross the road without getting run over by some prick in a car.
|
I know this because several townships across the country have admitted doing so after people began claiming so while fighting their tickets.
Why does everything on this forum have to turn into some ridiculous, unfounded personal attack?
Notions that people will run less red-lights because of cameras are so ridiculous. They're tax collection schemes.
|
Then they shouldn't do that. The amber set should be a certain length for safety sake cos the shorter it is then the more likely an accident. I was joking I know not if you speed up to go through lights or not.
I suspect you're wrong. But we still fine people for other things and its only driving offences that people call tax collection.
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
 |
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: November 03 2010 at 14:15 |
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
James wrote:
If we'd just stayed out of the middle-east issues in the first place, we wouldn't be worrying about terrorism.
|
That's where Ireland is ? The three generations before you were worried about that conflict. The bombs in England who killed your innocent countrymen were real enough. |
And as with that war on terror, it ended with us negotiating with the terrorists. As I see it we will have no choice but to negotiate with the Taleban. They may not be in power in Afghanistan, but do still still control significant regions of that huge country.
Anyway, I digress..
|
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 03 2010 at 14:41 |
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
I daren't answer this question you never know
who is watching.
No we're not a 'police state' not like N Korea Cuba Zimbabwe etc
But it does worry me the surveilance cameras and police powers to
combat terrorism. There is little point fighting terrorism by removing
freedom - it just means we've lost the battle. I think its a disgrace
that we cannot demonstrate outside parliament for example.
BTW the argument that Red light Cameras are a form of money making
taxation is idiotic. You break the law you pay the price. We get the
usual 'always picking on car drivers' argument here tis bollocks. If
you had a fine for breaking windows for example you wouldn't call that
a money making tax.
|
So the fact that yellow light times are deliberately shortened
at camera equipped intersections to "catch" more offenders is to punish
people for the great crime of being in a red light for .5 s?
It's idiotic to think they exist for protection or safety or whatever bs reason they're sold on at the time.
|
How do you know this? I expect its more due to you going too fast
to see the amber lights. Red means stop as far as I remember not speed
up to try and get through before they change. They are there for
safety reasons cos usually they are followed by 'traffic' coming from
another direction. Usually me trying to cross the road without getting
run over by some prick in a car.
|
I know this because several townships
across the country have admitted doing so after people began claiming
so while fighting their tickets.
Why does everything on this forum have to turn into some ridiculous, unfounded personal attack?
Notions that people will run less red-lights because of cameras are so ridiculous. They're tax collection schemes.
|
Then they shouldn't do that. The amber set should be a certain
length for safety sake cos the shorter it is then the more likely an
accident. I was joking I know not if you speed up to go through
lights or not.
I suspect you're wrong. But we still fine people for other things
and its only driving offences that people call tax collection. |
Sorry thought you were serious. Happens pretty frequently around here.
I'm speaking of the US obviously. I don't know enough about the workings of local UK municipalities, but in the US there have been numerous offenders in the government admitting to this.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: November 03 2010 at 14:57 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
I daren't answer this question you never know who is watching.
No we're not a 'police state' not like N Korea Cuba Zimbabwe etc But it does worry me the surveilance cameras and police powers to combat terrorism. There is little point fighting terrorism by removing freedom - it just means we've lost the battle. I think its a disgrace that we cannot demonstrate outside parliament for example.
BTW the argument that Red light Cameras are a form of money making taxation is idiotic. You break the law you pay the price. We get the usual 'always picking on car drivers' argument here tis bollocks. If you had a fine for breaking windows for example you wouldn't call that a money making tax.
|
So the fact that yellow light times are deliberately shortened at camera equipped intersections to "catch" more offenders is to punish people for the great crime of being in a red light for .5 s?
It's idiotic to think they exist for protection or safety or whatever bs reason they're sold on at the time.
|
How do you know this? I expect its more due to you going too fast to see the amber lights. Red means stop as far as I remember not speed up to try and get through before they change. They are there for safety reasons cos usually they are followed by 'traffic' coming from another direction. Usually me trying to cross the road without getting run over by some prick in a car.
|
I know this because several townships across the country have admitted doing so after people began claiming so while fighting their tickets.
Why does everything on this forum have to turn into some ridiculous, unfounded personal attack?
Notions that people will run less red-lights because of cameras are so ridiculous. They're tax collection schemes.
|
Then they shouldn't do that. The amber set should be a certain length for safety sake cos the shorter it is then the more likely an accident. I was joking I know not if you speed up to go through lights or not.
I suspect you're wrong. But we still fine people for other things and its only driving offences that people call tax collection. |
Sorry thought you were serious. Happens pretty frequently around here.
I'm speaking of the US obviously. I don't know enough about the workings of local UK municipalities, but in the US there have been numerous offenders in the government admitting to this.
|
I know.
I don't know of this happening here. However, they are often accused of putting speed cameras where they can make money. Some authorities have taken them away on grounds of cost cutting and people don't like them (Oxford I believe are now bringing them back so its a debate that will go on)
I doubt if its you that speeds through the red lights which I have to cross every day. Which is why this is an issue I do think important (Selfish really). The car drivers that do this do not, I think, realise how it makes pedestrians feel. they are only interested in getting from a to b as quick as poss.
Looks like its Snowy though ! 
|
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
Posted: November 03 2010 at 15:07 |
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
I daren't answer this question you never know who is watching.
No we're not a 'police state' not like N Korea Cuba Zimbabwe etc But it does worry me the surveilance cameras and police powers to combat terrorism. There is little point fighting terrorism by removing freedom - it just means we've lost the battle. I think its a disgrace that we cannot demonstrate outside parliament for example.
BTW the argument that Red light Cameras are a form of money making taxation is idiotic. You break the law you pay the price. We get the usual 'always picking on car drivers' argument here tis bollocks. If you had a fine for breaking windows for example you wouldn't call that a money making tax.
|
So the fact that yellow light times are deliberately shortened at camera equipped intersections to "catch" more offenders is to punish people for the great crime of being in a red light for .5 s?
It's idiotic to think they exist for protection or safety or whatever bs reason they're sold on at the time.
|
How do you know this? I expect its more due to you going too fast to see the amber lights. Red means stop as far as I remember not speed up to try and get through before they change. They are there for safety reasons cos usually they are followed by 'traffic' coming from another direction. Usually me trying to cross the road without getting run over by some prick in a car.
|
I know this because several townships across the country have admitted doing so after people began claiming so while fighting their tickets.
Why does everything on this forum have to turn into some ridiculous, unfounded personal attack?
Notions that people will run less red-lights because of cameras are so ridiculous. They're tax collection schemes.
|
Then they shouldn't do that. The amber set should be a certain length for safety sake cos the shorter it is then the more likely an accident. I was joking I know not if you speed up to go through lights or not.
I suspect you're wrong. But we still fine people for other things and its only driving offences that people call tax collection. |
Sorry thought you were serious. Happens pretty frequently around here.
I'm speaking of the US obviously. I don't know enough about the workings of local UK municipalities, but in the US there have been numerous offenders in the government admitting to this.
|
I know.
I don't know of this happening here. However, they are often accused of putting speed cameras where they can make money. Some authorities have taken them away on grounds of cost cutting and people don't like them (Oxford I believe are now bringing them back so its a debate that will go on)
I doubt if its you that speeds through the red lights which I have to cross every day. Which is why this is an issue I do think important (Selfish really). The car drivers that do this do not, I think, realise how it makes pedestrians feel. they are only interested in getting from a to b as quick as poss.
Looks like its Snowy though ! |
Swindon.  Oh wait, yes, Oxford plan on having them back, whilst Swindon aren't.
Edited by James - November 03 2010 at 15:08
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 03 2010 at 22:47 |
|
We should have an actual police state. Send them all to an island and call the place Polizeistadt or Copland or Donut Paradise or something... I'm all for that... Then we send criminals back there and we would have built the perfect society...
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: November 03 2010 at 22:48 |
So it seems the answer is "No" Which is what I expected, though there is some concern it may heading that way (at least by some people) You may now continue the derailment of the thread 
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 05:01 |
JJLehto wrote:
So it seems the answer is
"No"
Which is what I expected, though there is some concern it may heading that way (at least by some people)
You may now continue the derailment of the thread
|
Some people will always be paranoid and always see any authority as being too powerful, etc. The UK police force is so bogged-down with red-tape, proceedures, health & safety directives and needless bureaucracy they are never going to be a threat to public liberty.
Our police force is okay - I'd rather they were there than not - I can still go up to a Brit bobby and ask him for directions or even for the correct time and be met with politeness and helpfulness. That they don't patrol the streets armed to the eye-teeth is oddly reassuring, (as I have said many times before - gun ownership inthe UK is not illegal and villains don't use "legal" guns in any country). In 20 years of driving I've been stopped five times by the police and two of those were in the USA - given that I've spent a total of 25 weeks driving in the USA and over 1,000 in the UK so I don't feel that oppressed when driving on UK roads. The speed cameras are a bane, but it's not like they are every 500 yards (unless you are travelling into London, and quite frankly, having travelled those routes many times I've never had the opportunity to speed - anyone who can exceed 40mph on the A3 going into London deserves a medal not a ticket). Fixed speed cameras are known and visible (unlike some European countries where they hide or disguise them) - if you keep your eyes on the road it is easy to see them and slow down in time. I have no problem with red-light cameras, as houseofcheese says - amber means stop - anticipating the lights only gets you to the back of the next queue 5 seconds earlier - I'd rather get there 5 seconds later than be t-boned by a truck. Fortunately most intersections in the UK are regulated by roundabouts not traffic-lights - being passive and controlled by traffic-density they are far more efficient than lights at keeping the traffic moving (I found a roundabout in California once - I was so overjoyed I went around it twice just for the fun of it).
|
|
What?
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 07:19 |
|
I wouldn't say the answer is no. People just aren't agreeing on what is meant by police state. I'm personally disgusted by people's defenses of their negative response to your question. To me, they're saying no, but they're indicating yes.
Undoubtedly there were people in the USSR who bought into the half-wit justifications for their brutality and denied the nature of the regime. Perhaps some just haven't been on the bad end of the stick.
It would have been helpful if you provided a definition of police state for us to debate, as mine apparently wasn't liked.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 08:52 |
Blacksword wrote:
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
James wrote:
If we'd just stayed out of the middle-east issues in the first place, we wouldn't be worrying about terrorism.
|
That's where Ireland is ? The three generations before you were worried about that conflict. The bombs in England who killed your innocent countrymen were real enough. |
And as with that war on terror, it ended with us negotiating with the terrorists. As I see it we will have no choice but to negotiate with the Taleban. They may not be in power in Afghanistan, but do still still control significant regions of that huge country.
Anyway, I digress.. |
The history between Ireland and England is completely different to the history between Iraq/Afghanistan and England.
|
|
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 13:23 |
Indeed, the root causes are totally different, but I think the principles of fighting terror and insurgency are similar. You're not fighting an army. You're fighting an ideology, and that's a tough one to beat.
|
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
toroddfuglesteg
Forum Senior Member
Retired
Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 17:46 |
The Northern Ireland conflict is the best proof that UK is not a police state. If UK really was a police state, the insurgents and a substantial part of the local population would had been subdued into submission and/or erased.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 18:44 |
|
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 05 2010 at 08:18 |
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
The Northern Ireland conflict is the best proof that UK is not a police state. If UK really was a police state, the insurgents and a substantial part of the local population would had been subdued into submission and/or erased.
|
So Mao's China wasn't a police state? An insurgency existing could even be argued to be evidence for a police state.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 05 2010 at 11:05 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
The Northern Ireland conflict is the best proof that UK is not a police state. If UK really was a police state, the insurgents and a substantial part of the local population would had been subdued into submission and/or erased.
|
So Mao's China wasn't a police state?
An insurgency existing could even be argued to be evidence for a police state.
|
Well, we have armed militia in many states in the US ready to fight in case the government starts taking them guns... So the US is also a police state...
Is there any state that is not a police state by this standards?
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: November 05 2010 at 11:11 |
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
The Northern Ireland conflict is the best proof that UK is not a police state. If UK really was a police state, the insurgents and a substantial part of the local population would had been subdued into submission and/or erased.
|
So Mao's China wasn't a police state?
An insurgency existing could even be argued to be evidence for a police state.
|
Well, we have armed militia in many states in the US ready to fight in case the government starts taking them guns... So the US is also a police state...
Is there any state that is not a police state by this standards? |
Pat already said the US is a police state. It was his first post here:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I think the US is a police state. UK easily qualifies then. |
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 05 2010 at 11:19 |
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
The Northern Ireland conflict is the best proof that UK is not a police state. If UK really was a police state, the insurgents and a substantial part of the local population would had been subdued into submission and/or erased.
|
So Mao's China wasn't a police state?
An insurgency existing could even be argued to be evidence for a police state.
|
Well, we have armed militia in many states in the US ready to fight in case the government starts taking them guns... So the US is also a police state...
Is there any state that is not a police state by this standards? |
Pat already said the US is a police state. It was his first post here:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I think the US is a police state. UK easily qualifies then. |
|
Well, the question then is, which state isn't? 
Are we human beings prone to be controlled? Do we like it then?
Or is it that, one day long ago, some people got too powerful and created a structure that has lasted forever?
I insist on my idea of the literal police state though... 
|
|
|
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
Posted: November 05 2010 at 11:46 |
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
The Northern Ireland conflict is the best proof that UK is not a police state. If UK really was a police state, the insurgents and a substantial part of the local population would had been subdued into submission and/or erased. |
So Mao's China wasn't a police state? An insurgency existing could even be argued to be evidence for a police state. |
Well, we have armed militia in many states in the US ready to fight in case the government starts taking them guns... So the US is also a police state... Is there any state that is not a police state by this standards? |
Rex 84? It is quite an alarming read, but you'll find most countries probably have a similar 'emergency powers' procedure, for detaining 'subversives' in times of national emergency. The UK did in the cold war, and probably do now, but it's nothing new.
Rex 84
I would agree that it's obviously open to abuse.
|
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|
toroddfuglesteg
Forum Senior Member
Retired
Joined: March 04 2008
Location: Retirement Home
Status: Offline
Points: 3658
|
Posted: November 05 2010 at 12:04 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
The Northern Ireland conflict is the best proof that UK is not a police state. If UK really was a police state, the insurgents and a substantial part of the local population would had been subdued into submission and/or erased.
|
So Mao's China wasn't a police state?
An insurgency existing could even be argued to be evidence for a police state.
|
Get the facts right, please. The difference is that the Chinese did not have the name and addresses of every insurgents in the vast (as big as USA), often mountainous terrain where the insurgents was/is living and operating. UK did and still does due to the very small geographic area and population (120 km x 70 km / 800 000 civil population). The police could had nicked every single one of these insurgents and their supporters in less than 72 hours if UK was a police state. Easy job. But I like your political ideas, Equality 7-2521. Unfortunate, they are as realistic as my attempts to get a flying carpets business of the ground.
Edited by toroddfuglesteg - November 05 2010 at 12:18
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: November 05 2010 at 12:10 |
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
toroddfuglesteg wrote:
The Northern Ireland conflict is the best proof that UK is not a police state. If UK really was a police state, the insurgents and a substantial part of the local population would had been subdued into submission and/or erased.
|
So Mao's China wasn't a police state?
An insurgency existing could even be argued to be evidence for a police state.
|
Well, we have armed militia in many states in the US ready to fight in case the government starts taking them guns... So the US is also a police state...
Is there any state that is not a police state by this standards? |
Pat already said the US is a police state. It was his first post here:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I think the US is a police state. UK easily qualifies then. |
|
Well, the question then is, which state isn't?
Are we human beings prone to be controlled? Do we like it then?
Or is it that, one day long ago, some people got too powerful and created a structure that has lasted forever?
I insist on my idea of the literal police state though... |
-I said Iceland. I'm sure there's others. I'm not that much of a worldly man to know. -I would say yes. Milligram's work suggests I think, as well as the way state power has grown.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Is the UK Really a police state?
