Criminals R Us - boaty

[graham]

I am all for ID cards. Think about it 9/11 would not have happened if Americans carried ID cards???????

SS Officers were all ID carrying law abiding citizens.So no atrocities possible there then.....



How much extra real security could be paid for with the same cost?

There WILL be huge protests card burnings etc ,how many police officers will be diverted to control this?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Rowana]

You sound just like my wife - And I agree with both of you !

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[milltech]

Likewise next time arriving in Calais look to your right, sorry starboard, onto the promenade and see all the motor campers parked up on the sea front. Nice view, restaurants, what independent campers are for.

Here you're consigned to a field miles out of town.


<hr width=100% size=1>John
http://www.on-line-marine.com

 

[bedouin]

The problem is that the Government have been finding it too hard to catch criminals in the old sense (you know, murderers, burglars, fraudsters, PMs who deceive HoC, Home Secretaries who defraud the public).

So in order to keep the conviction rates up they have to invent new crimes that are easier to detect. That means that they can keep the courts busy and the prisons full without having to worry about solving any crimes.

Didn't I hear it reported recently that more motorists are sent to prison than burglars?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BustinAround]

I've heard from an insider that they're planning to link up all the CCTV with radar sensors so they can introduce speed limits for walking. If you hurry along the pavement at a reasonable speed soon your compulsory microchip will be scanned by the sensors in the pavement that are going to be tracking your every move anyway and reporting it back to brother blunkey.

They've already got a draft bill thats going to make jay-walking, jay-talking, jays and shoplifting illegal so we'd all better join halcyon's terrorist network before they make *that* illegal too.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ccscott49]

You failed to keep to the pompey small boat channel!!???!! Incredulous! Flogging is just too good for you! bring back hangin', the birch and all that good gear! Please dont anybody ask me why I dont live in the UK!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[halcyon]

But should the government be working to de-criminalize us, thinking about a safe boating system.

The new boat will be round ( no sharp pointy bit ), it will have a all over glass bubble ( no one can fall over board ), there will be a 150mm foam ( fireretardent and azone friendly ) around the edge ( provide seating and avoids possible injury in the event of a collision with any object fixed, floating or moving),it will have two big round tubes around it ( dual purpose, if holed they will keep the boat afloat, it one gets punctured you have a spare, and if you hit someone they act as bumpers), it will powered by a small electric motor ( eco friendly, slow speed so that any bump wil be slow and of a high surviveability factor ), around all the bays will be a barrier ( this is dual purpose again, it carries a windfarm producing energy for running the boats and the national grid, and it forms a lagoon of smooth water for safer boating, and stops boats drifting out to sea and getting lost [ or escaping]), there will be a hook on the back of each boat and a rope loop on the front ( this to allow boats to be linked together for movement or parking when not in use ), to move between designated boating area and parking area a tug shall be employed and boats linked in transit-mode ( this avoids danger from incorrect use of channels, shipping lanes, hitting fixed obsticles, and floating ones, and raggy ones from wondering anywere), once in the designated boating area a pole with a sheet attached may be raised through a safety hatch in the bubble to allow drifting around to conserve electric power. all boats will be the same shape and colour and all named IT so as to provide for complete equallity to all.

Shall start work on the motor car now.

Do you think Tony will be interested in buying the design rights ???????


Brian

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://link>www.kddpowercentre.com</A>

 

[Dave_Snelson]

Emotive subject...

...for me any way!

It just annoys the hell out of me the way Blunkett-the-Flunkett wants to criminalise whole sections of the British community whilst letting real issues that affect us all, go unresolved. Examples of this are:-

Fox Hunting. Who cares?? It is irrelevant to us and serves to outlaw otherwise law abiding country folk.

Smoking in pubs. (I am a non-smoker) It seeks to outlaw otherwise law abiding citizens.

Masses of motoring laws. Why?? Just to criminalise us all and show that this government really is cracking down...on who?? Us!

Defending our property and family against those that wish to do us harm!! Err, no, you aren't allowed to do that.

What about drugs and all the crime that relates to that particular scourge of our society?? Err, no, we can't tackle this problem, so we'll legalise it. Then the problem and it statistics goes away doesn't it?

Useless Blunkett is just the token disabled idiot in amongst the rest of the able bodied idiots that pretend to govern this country.

Ahh - feel better now!

<hr width=100% size=1>Madoc Yacht Club
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk>http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk</A>

 

[Sea Devil]

Re: Emotive subject...

I am not sure that ID cards are all about catching terrorists or criminals - for sure the professionals will find a way around the security.

What is will do is to put every citizen under one central 'security code'. For Tax, National insurance, boat registration, driving licencen, pilots licence, VHF operators licence, property ownership, SSB operators licence, marriage - divorce - offences - everything will be under one 'sort code' so it will become very difficult to 'get away' with things - beat the system.

Good or bad? Big brother or reasonable?



<hr width=100% size=1>If you have time please visit my web site -
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.michaelbriant.com/sailing>http://www.michaelbriant.com/sailing</A>

 

[longjohnsilver]

Now that is a dangerous sign agreeing with your own wife!! If it was someone elses wife I could understand but.............

And we had Peter Hain asserting just a few days ago that the country will be safer from terrorism under a labour govt!!! Wonder why he said that??!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[gjeffery]

I thought the purpose of HSWA (1974) was to roll up most existing Health and Safety legislation, which was highly specific, into a new Act that would replace specific legislation with general principles. My employers, had me qualify in safety as an adjunct to my role as an engineer.

Since 1975, H&S has stemmed the tide of declining industry with Safety Specialists appointed, often on disproportionately generous salaries, to cope with the continuing deluge of highly specific legislation, much of it imposed by the EC.

The good news is that while it takes 4 years to graduate in engineering, it is still possible to qualify from scratch as a safety practitioner, by taking a day release course over 20 weeks.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BustinAround]

Re: Emotive subject...

I've had enough of this baseless ranting now.

"Fox Hunting. Who cares?? It is irrelevant to us and serves to outlaw otherwise law abiding country folk."

Nothing to do with the home office. Who cares? Very simple, the promise of parliament debate was in the manifesto that got them elected with a ridiculously huge majority. That debate has led to a ban.

"Smoking in pubs. (I am a non-smoker) It seeks to outlaw otherwise law abiding citizens."

Again not blunkett. You're not a smoker? Well neither am I, but I want it banned so there goes your point.

"Masses of motoring laws. Why?? Just to criminalise us all and show that this government really is cracking down...on who?? Us!"

Kindly tell me how many motoring laws blunkett has introduced. In fact, tell me how many labour has introduced as I already know the answer to the first question.

"Defending our property and family against those that wish to do us harm!! Err, no, you aren't allowed to do that."

I take it you're talking about Tony Martin? Well that was decided by the COURTS!
You ARE allowed to defend yourself, you can look up the acts on uk online if you don't believe me.


"What about drugs and all the crime that relates to that particular scourge of our society?? Err, no, we can't tackle this problem, so we'll legalise it. Then the problem and it statistics goes away doesn't it?"

That's news to me! Kindly point me in the direction of the act that has legalised drugs and crime. Woo paradox!

"Useless Blunkett is just the token disabled idiot in amongst the rest of the able bodied idiots that pretend to govern this country."

Token disabled idiot?? Thats highly offensive, untrue, and merely confirms that you are a buffoon.











<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mudplugger]

Re: Emotive subject...

You may or may not be right, but as you have not the courtesy to give any details on your profile,why should anybody take notice of your comments!. TW

<hr width=100% size=1>Tony W.

 

[BustinAround]

Re: Emotive subject...

Kind of fits in with the whole thread doesn't it. You should take notice of my comments because I pointed out a series of untruths. Why does my profile change anything and why is it "courteous" to maintain one anyway, surely its personal preference?

There's a distinct lack of logic and truth in this whole thread!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tome]

Amazing, isn't it.

I tried to find some statistics on what proportion of the population had criminal records by year to see what the effect of this government has been. Suspect it's a large increase, but couldn't find detail on my web research. Proposed or newly enacted legislation will bump the numbers.

Regulating every aspect of our lives will surely lead to organised civil disobedience, or worse. Is there no way of stopping the onslaught?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gunfleet]

I'm sorry Tom, but you don't need to have committed a criminal offence to be dna tested - just arrested. For example, if you were arrested on suspicion of excess alcohol but found to be within the limit (or even found to be the wrong person - it happens) in the police station and released, you would still have been dna tested and the dna would still be kept on the register.
Tried registering a new car recently? They want your date of birth. What does your date of birth have to do with the existence of a car? Now if they asked for the car's date of birth I could understand it.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[steve_l]

I echo your sentiments exactly...

Ok, here we have drink/boating laws, but at 2x the driving limit and sensibly enforced it's no real hardship.
I can sail anywhere and drop the hook without having to pay someone for the privilege. Or just tie-up bows-on to the lee of a convenient island overnight...

I can even walk across someone else's land (called "every man's right") without the owner getting upset about it and threatening dire physical consequences if I don't remove my person...

And the whole transport system doesn't collapse in winter due to a snowflake or two... )
Only once got caught in a real traffic jam and the interchange that caused it has been changed now...

Speeding fines are on a sliding scale determined by the level of the excess speed and the ability to pay...
There is no pretence about the relatively few speed cameras being about safety... they're there purely to make money! and when the roadsign indicates that there's a camera ahead, there will be one and in open view. If you get caught by it then you are not paying attention or you are stupid... simple as that, no arguement!
And the police are courteous because it's only a job!

Sooo glad I moved )

-steve-

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KevB]

Re: Emotive subject...

"On Tuesday Mr Blunkett said he was repaying £180 to Parliament for the first class train ticket he gave to Mrs Quinn. He apologised for his "genuine mistake".

Well that's ok then.

By the way I'm just off to rob a bank....If I get caught I'll just offer to repay the money. That should square everything up with the boys in blue.

Free food shopping for me in the future, when I get caught loading the weekly groceries into the boot I'll just offer to pay for what I've just nicked. No problem.

Well done Mr Blunkett. If it's ok for you it must be ok for me. TWAT



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>

 

[ShipsWoofy]

baseless ranting

My Arse!

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://big-blunkett.blogspot.com/>http://big-blunkett.blogspot.com/</A>

Ok Überfuhrer Blunkett

>proposals to remove the right to trial by jury in some cases

>The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has accused Home Secretary David Blunkett of imposing "punitive" measures against Iraqi asylum seekers.

>Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems are something that many people aren't aware of - which might be why Home Secretary David Blunkett is so keen on them as a means for tracking us yet further. He announced yesterday that the Government is to spend an additional £15 million of our money on these systems.

>Following the 2002-2003 sham "consultation" on ID Cards, the Home Office proudly announced that 79% of respondents supported ID cards. Despite the fact that this result was only obtained by fiddling the figures, Home Secretary David Blunkett has been repeating it ever since. Well, reality has caught up with Big Blunkett. Today the Home Office published the results of its more recent consultation. The figures are now a mere <font color=red>31%</font color=red> in favour and 48% against.

>Faced with the possibility of people not obeying the ban, what is Big Blunkett's immediate reaction? Cameras in trees! You can imagine his joy at finding yet another excuse to spy on us.

>Home Secretary David Blunkett is at it again. The BBC reports that he is considering banning a potentially embarrassing book about the immigration scandal.

>Just last month, in its annual "Big Brother" awards to recognise the worst offenders, Privacy International announced it had renamed one category the David Blunkett Lifetime Menace award, in recognition of the number of times he has been nominated.

>Home Secretary David Blunkett will not be winning a Big Brother award this year, despite overwhelming public nomination. The reason is simply that he has already won too often - the organisers wanted to give someone else a chance.

>If the hard-line Home Secretary gets his way, PC Plod will be able to stop me and you and demand an identity card. If we fail to produce one, he could march us to the nearest police station to "check on the database, sir".

>used his own Guantanamo Bay to lock up a man without trial on the grounds of "evidence" he wasn't allowed to see and keep him there for two years. Not surprisingly this drove the man mentally ill and resulted in him being a danger to himself - yet Blunkett still refused to release him, preferring to throw away the key.
When the Special Immigration Appeal Commission told Big Blunkett that he had to act humanely he appealed. Last week the courts told him to release his victim.
In his usual arrogant style, BB was unwilling to admit his mistake and called the court "bonkers", then announced proposed legal changes to prevent the troublesome rule of law getting in his way in future.

>David Blunkett's recent crackdown on binge drinking was nothing compared with the measures our authoritarian Home Secretary wanted to introduce. The Publican reports that Blunkett wanted all sorts of attacks on the great British local including minimum drink pricing and - wait for it - banning people from drinking standing up!

>This week British Home Secretary David Blunkett will argue in the courts for the right to charge victims of miscarriages of justice "lodging" costs for their time in prison.

>On Tuesday, Home Secretary David Blunkett announced that the Crown Prosecution Service is to be renamed the Public Prosecution Service. Now, we can argue about whether this is a significant change or "merely" symbolic, but it should have been obvious to the meanest intelligence that the symbolic aspect is very important. It turns out that in his usual arrogant, "I know best" style, David Blunkett didn't even have the courtesy to consult with the Palace in advance. The Palace was only informed - not consulted - just before the announcement and later issued a statement confirming this, saying: "We are aware of the changes and we will be consulted in due course."

>He has thankfully dropped the suggestion of lowering the burden of proof. However the remaining measures include:

"Pre-emptive" trials, i.e. locking people up for things they haven't yet done but are believed likely to do

Convictions based on intelligence reports alone, i.e. without any substantive evidence

Trials held partly in secret

The victim - sorry, defendant - not being allowed to see all the evidence against them


>It seems that Big Blunkett is still not satisfied with his ability to spy on us all. He is to announce next week that the security "service" MI5 will increase its spy count by 50%. That's a thousand extra spies in the UK, bringing the numbers back up to the level they were last at in WWII. The top brass at the Ministry must be right chuffed, what ho!

>The case concerned Blunkett's draconian scheme for removing all benefit from certain asylum seekers in an attempt to force them to live on the streets.

>In 2002 Big Blunkett attempted to widen the range of people who could see these records. A last minute public backlash forced him to drop the plans. Now they're back. Blunkett plans to open our records up to a host of government agencies. These will include such front-line anti-terrorism agencies as the Charities Commission, the jobcentre and the Chief Inspector of Schools.

>allowing gossip to be accepted as evidence.

><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>New and updated website

 

[BustinAround]

Re: Emotive subject...

"By the way I'm just off to rob a bank....If I get caught I'll just offer to repay the money. That should square everything up with the boys in blue."

Let's not be irrational now, they two aren't exactly equivalent are they.

<hr width=100% size=1>