This whole 'nuttsacking' thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
50 posts • joined 13 Mar 2008
I am typing this slowly so that you can understand.
The article by John Ozimek relates to English and Scottish law and how the use of a camera in certain locations in England, Wales and Scotland (and probably Northern Ireland) could attract unwanted attention by the police.
Now my earliest entry was regarding something which happened in Australia and then Amtrak police in America. Neither of these incidents occurred within the U.K. so by bringing them to this forum and 'tut-tutting' about them is completely irrelevant.
Mark if you read my comment it quotes Mr Ozimek's article relating to 'upstanding Englishmen', therefore an item regarding an incident in an American railway station could only have relevance here if it involved an upstanding English miscreant. That is what you failed to see as you put it!
By people posting 'look at this' and neglecting to point out that 'it' happened abroad stir things up unnecessarily. Incidents in Australia and America cannot be compared with the hypothetical use of counter terrorist legislation or even common law breach of the peace in the U.K. (Hypothetical = Mr Ozimek's use of the words may and might in his article).
You forgot the first line of the original article on which we are commenting:
>Government claims to uphold the right of good upstanding Englishmen with cameras to snap whenever and wherever they please took a knock last week, with the publication of a letter from the Home Office setting out when these rights might be curtailed.<
i do not know the nationality of said miscreant at the raiway station in New York but I fail to see the relevance to this thread, as stated to Mr Kitson earlier.
I would like to draw contributors' attention to the words 'may' and 'might' in the article when referring to the use of this legislation.
There is also, as in most exchanges with the 'Old Bill', an attitude test to pass. If Joe Public passes it he goes about his business unhindered. If he fails then someone will probably spoil his day. Clearly said 'Old Bill' can also fail the test, as is the case in far too many encounters in the capital. 'The Filth' are human too and can have a bad day the same as any geek etc. If you're sat in front of a monitor you can be as big and brave as you like, ranting and raving as you please but a Copper's workplace is a bit different.
Pray tell, Register readers, when are you likely to fall foul of Plod when taking a photo. Shove it in his face and you'll probably regret it but play nicely and you get to walk away.
I'm pretty sure I'm never going to take a photograph that would or could get me into trouble but I wish to rant and rave about it from the safety of my own home/desk etc. If Brown and his Nazi pigs want to do something about it they can rip the camera from my still twitching hands. GRRRRRRRRRR!
Grow up and get a bloody life you bunch of slack-jawwed wankers.
Searching for a destiny that's mine
there's another place another time.
Touching many hearts along the way
Hoping that I'll never have to say
It's just an illusion - illusion - illusion. (interspersed with - ooh ooh ooh ooh ah, If you wish to be precise).
A classic song by Imagination.
The guy clearly had a rush of blood to the head and thought this was a good idea. He clearly under-estimated what a complete cock people think he is.
....our former colonial brothers/sisters (and others) may not know about this news item.
Now I'm usually of the "hang 'em high" brigade but we no longer have that option in the UK.
Now this is slightly off topic, but where would Barry 'Gulzar' George be now if he had been sentenced to death for the murder of Jill Dando? The evidence was apparently compelling first time round but not seven or so years later.
Now speculate all you want over the evidence, for and against, but Mr George is living proof that death sentences don't work.
(I have to say I am still chuckling about that last sentence)
Mine's the one with the Albert Pierrepoint name tag inside.
@ martin whinnery -
A very reasoned and sensible post. You must be new to The Register!
@ A.C. 1313 hrs -
Your comments regarding 'southern shites' cannot pass without comment, you Geordie twat!
Of criminal records, I have to say, Gary Glitter's - 'What your Mama don't see (You Mama don't know)' has got to be right up there!
I'm sensing you're getting annoyed. Your last post makes no sense and you're careering off the point.
Let's say you work as a taxi or delivery driver. Your work takes you to Huntingdon Life Sciences, picking up and delivering on a regular basis. If you were to receive a letter from the ALF or similar on your doormat, you would think 'how did they get my address?'
The letters may start off asking you to cease all trading with HLS. You have read in the papers that these things can escalate so you start paying more attention in your daily routine. You then notice someone hanging around outside your address. More letters arrive with, lets say, a photo of you and your vehicle and some words that you find threatening. You still continue to visit HLS because you have to earn a crust.
Damage to your own and your partner's vehicles ensue followed by more letters to you and your partner etc.
Then one night your vehicle catches fire next to your house. You lose everything.
I'm not saying that this would happen in every case of 'letters' but similar has. If you have any contact with HSL and their ilk you would be wise to check your vehicle every time you get in it and watch your back.
That is why these people need stopping by the authorities using whatever legislation fits the bill.
These individuals and their ilk are bad people. Animal rights extremists are exactly that - extremists. These letters are usually sent to the recipients home address not the business premises. The recipients can feel 'violated' , harrassed and threatened even by a letter, that on the surface appears harmless. These letters can often lead on to an incendiary device under a car to add to the menace. Rant on Steve, about a subject you seem to know nothing about.
.......it was a police officer that was wearing this t-shirt.
There would have been more than the 180 posts currently showing here saying what a wanker he/she was for wearing such a t-shirt. Blah - blah - blah.
Yes the security man was a knob and so was his supervisor but if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.
By the way, why does this sort of shit happen to IT consultants?
I have neither said that teachers should monitor kids in this way nor that every holiday they take involves lounging by a swimming pool!
I did say that in my day retard was a verb and not a noun. This is correct though it has subsequently come to be used as a noun by the dunces produced by the teachers in question.
Said teachers are too busy arranging their next sojourn (that means holiday, vacation or break) to be worried about their pupil's inability to string coherent thoughts together. You've got to laugh, I am.
Mine is the one with smart-arse (not ass) on the back.
..... in all things as many contributors on The Register.
I perhaps wrongly assume that Raith and AC 13.37 are the same person as they both seem to resort to name calling. I also assume that he is a teacher.
If not then we are on a level playing field.
I have had four children, the two youngest still at school. My neighbours are both teachers and appear to work the same hours as I do each day. They also appear to HAVE AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME OFF! Therefore, I stand by my statement.
As a foot note I think that 'the boyz and girlz of the hood' are really not the sort of kids that bother attending school that much.
"You utter, utter retard"
In my day retard was a verb not a noun.
I wouldn't say "You utter, utter wank" but I would use the word wanker.
How times have changed but one thing remains constant - teachers do have an awful lot of time off. They also never seem to be able to fit in all this extra training during the periods they are off. They seem to insist on an extra day off either before or after a school break.
Now it must be assumed that all the individuals that were tasered, were arrested, whether or not they subsequently died. What percentage of people tasered during this period did not die?
How many people were arrested without the use of Taser and subsequently died?
How many just keeled over and died when running away?
I'm not saying that Taser had no part in these reported deaths because, like the rest of you, I am not in possession of the full facts.
Believe it or not some humans have physical defects which can go unnoticed until a stressful situation and die as a result. If, due to their own stupidity, they end up at the wrong end of a Taser then it was probably just their time.
If you are accidentally failing to pay for your petrol and you end up with four f*cked tyres then so what. Take the forecourt owners to court and see where that gets you. They will have proof that you didn't pay, you will only have your word that you forgot. It might make you remember next time.
If you are walking over the top of said device when it activates, having ignored all the warning signs that they will have been required to place, then more fool you. You'll only do that once! Take the forecourt owners to court and see where that gets you.
If you are a car thief ,or similar, with no intention of paying then you won't get very far. The car owner will get their car back with a full tank of fuel, the insurance will (probably) buy some new tyres and the forecourt owners will get some free publicity, dissuading any further miscreants from attempting a drive off.
It is a win win situation if you ask me.
........if the offer of a handgun or free fuel was the better option? We seem to have gone off on one, so to speak.
That never, normally happens on The Register.
Here's another angle - Which will kill more people? Burning the free fossil fuel or cousin Enus and his 9mm going on a rampage?
There we haven't ranted about the green issue yet.
You seem to be getting a little confused. The article is about police officers in England and Wales (for the geographically challenged that does not include Canada, Scotland nor Northern Ireland).
Any more of that nonsense and you'll shining somebody's toecaps with your gentleman's area and opening the the van door with your head!
Close to a hundred comments in under 24 hrs. My, that's impressive.
In the short time that I have been aware of ‘The Register’ I have noticed a bit of a trend. The subjects of paedophilia and pornography seem to get all of you a bit hot under the collar. You can certainly tell which contributors were only using one hand to type.
Is yours the one with the crispy tissues in the pocket?
I'm disappointed that there is no answer provided by the Register's so-called experts in all things IT.
Five days of hot air and bollocks in critisism of Jacqui Smith and her advisors. Once the ball was in your court you, collectively, had the chance to display your prowess.
A week later, not a murmur, bugger all, well done! (Cue distant church bell, whistling wind and tumble weed.)
Fade to black.
Clearly paedophiles do not abide by the laws of the land. Many of the contributors to this thread have criticised Ms Smith's advisors but what is the answer?
It is all very amusing to poke fun at the inadequacy or stupidity of the government’s efforts, but that doesn't help to prevent some adult raping or sexually abusing a baby or older child.
Mr Myers - Yes we DID seem to need terror plods when the the IRA were in full swing! That is why we have had Special Branch officers since the late 19th centuary.
David - 52 deaths and many injured on 7th July 2005. A further atrocity attempted by another group a couple of weeks later on 21st July.
Terrorism has numerous definitions and takes many forms. You seem to be dismissing the threat in the UK but I bet you would have shit yourself if you had cause to travel on the London underground in mid July 2005. What could have happened on the anniversary?
That is the point of terrorism, from whichever group it comes. The act of terrorism is unlikely to be aimed at you specifically but would you ignore an unattended bag on a bus, train or at an airport? After all you are not the target.
Terrorists only have to be lucky once to be 'heroes'.
Why wear trousers at all?
I favour the moleskin codpiece. I was going to say that it is not big enough to secrete such a tag but that might give the wrong impression!
I keep my Tesco Visa chip and pin card safely in a lead lined box so that my route through their shop cannot be traced. I then pay cash, in Euros, and affect a foreign accent thus confusing my identity further. You know it makes sense.
AC - As for '1984 all over again'. Have the Eurythmics re-released said album?
Dana W, you wrote - "I've owned several stunguns, you aren't even allowed to touch one. So till you know what you are talking about at least slightly, you might want to study up. Or aren't you allowed to read about them either?"
You appear to be talking out of your arse (that's ass for the linguistically challenged)!
To have tested your stun gun on yourself and then write that the worst it can do is give you a numb arm and wet underwear says a lot about you. Perhaps if you take your Glock 36 and test that in a similar manner against your temple you could describe it's merits over the Glock 19.
I have been carrying firearms, operationally as a police officer, for the last 18 years in my part of the world (the U.K). I haven't had to shoot anyone in that time. In the last two years we have been carrying Taser (Dana, you should spell Taser with an 'S' not a 'Z') and I haven't had to use that either. Taser was introduced to this country as a 'less lethal option' and has been used as such by my colleagues. I say used, most have only had to light up the subject with the laser dot to gain their compliance (Dana, in case you are wondering, laser is with an 'S' not a 'Z' as well).
The reason this individual's stun gun phone was seized was that it is illegal to possess such an item in this country. At the wrong time in the wrong place, someone might have ended up dead. End of story, really.
Taser = Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle.
Laser = Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
A 'stun gun' and a Tazer are, to all intents and purposes, the same thing. Both deliver a sufficient jolt of electricity to spoil your day and stop you in your tracks. If you are unlucky enough to be the user of a heart pacemaker and get zapped by one of these, it may be your last earthly experience.
Now if the 'zapper' is a police officer with a Tazer, he will have been trained to shout a warning along the lines of "Would you mind,awfully, desisting from your course of action or 50,000 volts will be coursing through your body!". Now the alleged naughty person, upon hearing this, will stop and happily converse with the police officer and desist from said naughtiness. This would clearly be the case if Mr Naughty had a pacemaker because he would know that such spikes of electricity are particularly disruptive!
If the 'zapper' is a slack-jawed, f*ckwit with a stun gun made to look like something innocuous then the possibility is that the 'zappee' will not know it's coming and cannot do anything to avoid it. The zapper will not have weighed up the possible result of his actions and that is where you could have a death. Those pedants who are aguing the likely output of a device with an 'x' or a 'y' battery, capacitor or blah-blah-blah may like to check out 'stun gun' on ebay.com. In the U.S you can buy a nice little one that will fit inside a cigarette packet (uses 3 volt lithium batteries) and puts out one million volts. A possibly quicker death than smoking the cigarettes? Who can tell? I wouldn't like to find out.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022