You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 15:36 Conor wrote: > On 24/03/2010 10:01, Bod wrote: > >> >> As I understand it, the police have learned from that mistake and no >> longer accept such small quantities as hard evidence. >> >> Look at it the other way, far more innocent suspects have been >> eliminated from police enquiries by using DNA. >> > > Social Services apparently learned from the Victoria Climbie tradgedy > yet less than a year after the inquiry, the very same social workers > made the same mistake and even this week, we have another story.. Indeed - and yet when Social Services come to visit a relative of yours because they have concerns - you kick up a stink about it. They can't win can they? Kev
From: Cynic on 24 Mar 2010 15:36 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:15:52 -0000, "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>|| 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... >> Of course it is. The Home Office decides on the priorities and the >> targets. >That only tells them what they must do. A body that is under the complete control of the government must surely be regarded as being part of the government? -- Cynic
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 15:47 Conor wrote: > On 24/03/2010 10:21, Ret. wrote: > >> Determining where vehicles are coming from and going to is immensely >> useful if you are looking at improving local roads infrastructure. > > That is done around here by having people sat on fold up chairs at > several junctions along a stretch of road counting the number and type > of vehicle. And they are mind readers as well are they? They can miraculously determine where the cars came from and also where they are going to? Amazing the people around your way - but then you are 'superbrain' aren't you? The only man in the world who can efficiently do two brain-taxing tasks at the same time and as efficiently as if he was only doing the one. It must be something in the water... > >> Little point in building a new road from A to B if the traffic on the >> over-congested road is only using it briefly to get from C to D. > > Why not? Its still congested. Doh! Because the idea will be to create new roads to divert the traffic away from the congested road - and until they find where that traffic is coming from and wants to get to, where would they build the new road? > >> If you are driving a truck then who you work for may well enable >> them to deduce the likely traffic movements from your depot along >> that road. > > That is none of their business and a traffic survey as I described > would still suffice. See above. No it wouldn't. Kev
From: Ret. on 24 Mar 2010 15:48 Conor wrote: > On 24/03/2010 16:09, Ret. wrote: > >> I don't put my e-mail address on my posts because I know from early >> naive experience that that is the fastest way to end up with tons of >> spam cascading into my inbox on a daily basis. >> But we are not talking about public forums - we are talking about >> official and secure databases. >> > > Ah yes, official and secure. > > As I recall in the last couple of years, the entire records of the > child benefit system have gone missin and there have been several > other gaffs by HMRC, Benefits Agency and security services all > involving personal data of many many thousands of people. And the damage that has been caused by the loss of this data is......? I never heard another word about it after the loss. Kev
From: Brimstone on 24 Mar 2010 15:54
"Cynic" <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:9qpkq5lmd0d6s4p0310pqef8lo6kgmr27d(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:15:14 -0000, "Brimstone" > <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> 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? > >>Oh good grief, you really are as naive as Kev. > > Or perhaps you are. > > At the end of the day, the entire function of the police is to enforce > the law. > > Which boils down to forcing the people to do what the government tells > them to do or not do, no matter how you dress it up. > > Whether the police are or are not a part of the government is a moot > point, because they exist as one of the main *tools* of the > government, and are as much under its control (direct and indirect) as > the soldering iron on my workbench is under my control. > Does your soldering iron go home to a wife and kids after a shift during which all it's seen is the dark side of life? |