You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Rob on 24 Mar 2010 14:53 ARWadsworth wrote: || "Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message || news:80t1akF4qfU1(a)mid.individual.net... ||| On 23/03/2010 22:21, Steve Firth wrote: ||| |||| That's down to the operational side (the Kevins of this world) and |||| basically I think you'd be on a loser. The plod are keen to seize |||| and crush cars and they don't listen to any arguments at the side |||| of the road. They expect drivers to carry all of their documents |||| with them at all times and TBH they don't even accept Certificates |||| of Insurance as evidence that a car is insured. ||| ||| Not forgetting that according to them, the Motor Insurance Database ||| is infallible and even when you prove your innocence you, the ||| innocent person, are still left with a �150 recovery bill plus �12 ||| for each day your car is in storage plus the cost of travel to the ||| police station and then the storage compound after it was taken off ||| you. Do you get an apology? No. ||| ||| And the Police wonder why the public have the attitude they do. ||| ||| -- ||| Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. || || So is the �150 is not recoverable or repaid when a mistake has been || made? No it's not recoverable, but it *can* be repaid at the discretion of the police. There are isolated instances of this happening. -- Rob
From: Rob on 24 Mar 2010 14:56 Cynic wrote: || On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:59:28 -0000, "Brimstone" || <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: || ||| It's not "the government" that the issue. The people likely to ||| misuse the data are in the police, security services, local ||| authorities and the myriad of other bodies supposedly there to ||| serve the public. || || I class all of those bodies as being part of "the government" THeir || funding and policies are controlled by politicians. Police policy controlled by politicians? if only... -- Rob
From: Cynic on 24 Mar 2010 15:00 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:51:36 -0000, "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>That makes you sound as naive as Kev. >> So explain how they are funded and controlled. >The police are funded by the local taxpayer (except for the Met). The fundamental basis by which local authorities are permitted to tax comes from government policy. If local councils started doing things the government didn't like they would be reeled in PDQ. > Whilst >overall policies are put in place by government at some level that doesn't >stop employees of those organisations "showing initiative". So long as such initiatives stay within government policy, sure. Guess what would happen if a local police chief decided not to prosecute canabis smokers after the Home Secretary had announced a crackdown on drug users? Or decided that government targets were irrelevant and refused to meet them? -- Cynic
From: Conor on 24 Mar 2010 15:01 On 24/03/2010 16:44, Ret. wrote: > Do you believe that the police and intelligence services have the time > or the resources to examine the movements of the entire population just > on the off-chance that a few may not be beyond reproach? > Yes. Most of it can be automated. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 24 Mar 2010 15:02
On 24/03/2010 16:42, Ret. wrote: > I didn't refuse - I simply did not volunteer. Having my dna on a > database created specifically to eliminate contamination from a crime > scene left by attending officers, would indeed be irrelevant because I > would not be attending crime scenes. > Why didn't you volunteer? After all, if you've nothing to hide... > > ANPR information could well be relevant if, for example, a terrorist > incident occurred in a specific location and they wanted to check on > vehicles that had been travelling in or near that location at the > relevant times. Just as with CCTV recordings. > But you said that there wasn't the manpower... -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. |