You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 10:44 Conor wrote: > On 26/03/2010 12:06, Bod wrote: > >>> Or even just a mundane but embarrassing ailment. Who wants the whole >>> world >>> knowing they had athletes foot or piles or ecszma or IBS or whatnot? > >> Why on earth would having that knowledge, bother anyone? >> >> Bod > > Ask those in the USA who had medical treatment refused because they'd > not informed their HMO of a pre-existing condition. What on earth has that got to do with anything? Anyone applying for health insurance is required to give details of pre-existing conditions. If they don't then they have obtained a pecuniary advantage by deception. If they are caught out then it's their own fault. Kev
From: Big Les Wade on 26 Mar 2010 10:43 Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> posted > >The new set of rules are under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section >58A of the 2000 Act. They target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to >elicit information about (members of armed forces) … which is of a >kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of >terrorism'. > >..such as my name and address.... >Having served in a period when the IRA were particularly active on the >UK mainland, our names and addresses were considered to be of >importance to the IRA who could target us with car bombs etc. Sheer fantasy. The constable would quite certainly have a "reasonable excuse" defence. -- Les Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out to be linked to serious offences.
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 10:58 Conor wrote: > On 26/03/2010 11:58, Ret. wrote: >> Conor wrote: >>> On 25/03/2010 15:10, Ret. wrote: >>> >>>> I can understand that there are other people who are not like this, >>>> who, instead of being amiable and co-operative, are argumentative, >>>> unco-operative, and will not do *anything* unless they absolutely >>>> have to. >>> >>> I am quite lucky in this respect. As someone who is an ex-member of >>> the security services (Police/Armed Forces etc) , I do not have to >>> answer a police officers questions thanks to an amendment to the >>> Terrorism Act. In fact, unless he has good reason, the officer is >>> actually committing an offence under the Terrorism Act by asking me. >> >> Would you care to enlighten us as to this amendment that excuses you >> from answering lawful questions? I don't suppose it excuses you from >> being arrested for refusing to give your name and address when it is >> lawfully required...? >> > > The new set of rules are under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section > 58A of the 2000 Act. They target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to > elicit information about (members of armed forces) � which is of a > kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of > terrorism'. > > > ..such as my name and address.... > > Having served in a period when the IRA were particularly active on the > UK mainland, our names and addresses were considered to be of > importance to the IRA who could target us with car bombs etc. And you honestly think that this excuses you from answering lawful questions put to you by a police officer? Kev
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 10:59 Conor wrote: > On 26/03/2010 12:13, Ret. wrote: >> Conor wrote: >>> On 24/03/2010 23:18, Ret. wrote: >>> >>>> What if? What if? What if? This is really becoming very tiresome. >>>> What if your next door neighbour has a brain storm, kills his wife >>>> -but tells the police that you did it? We could go on all week >>>> coming up with What ifs... >>>> >>> >>> Ask Jean Charles de Menezes about "what ifs". Oh wait, you can't and >>> why is that? >> >> I reckon you'll still be dragging this up in another 20 years time >> wont you? Things happen - what you ought to be grateful about is >> that they happen a lot less in the UK than they happen in most other >> countries. >> > > So do road deaths, burglaries, murder, drug use etc Kev so why are you > saying there is a need for a national ANPR database? You do come up with some peculiar responses to posts don't you? Kev
From: Ret. on 26 Mar 2010 11:01
Conor wrote: > On 26/03/2010 12:17, Ret. wrote: > >> You can drag up unlikely scenarios as long as you like. The fact is >> that I stand more chance of being killed by a crashing 747 than I >> will of becoming involved in one of your imaginary scenarios. >> > Mainly because you're ex-plod. > >> It could happen to someone, somewhere, but the chances of it >> happening to any one of us is so remote as to be not worth being >> concerned about. And I am *not* concerned about it. >> > > Someone in London was recently killed due to one of these imaginary > scenarios you claim are fanciful. Indeed. And the chances of that happening to any particular individual again are? What do you think are the chances of you personally being shot dead by a police officer? Do you have sleepless nights worrying about it? Kev |