nanny state, more legislation & it doesn't cover jet skis !

[ShipsWoofy]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently you work in the liberal media as well. Thanks for the extra details - found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Wolfgang
I'm not impressed by his age - perhaps I'm not afflicted with agism, or perhaps it comes from seeing too many cases of elder protesters pulling out the age card when they're busted for trespassing. From my many years in the Pacific North West I had become inured to the antics of the "Raging Grannies", just one of the many groups of neo-hippie malcontents, who are well-schooled in the arts of protest and organized anarchy (how's that for an oxymoron?). Mr Wolfgang paints a familiar picture - a fervent socialist with 5 decades of social activism to his name. He heckled Jack Straw, not Blair and was detained when he tried to re-enter on a voided security pass. If you truly believe that was due to the machinations of Blair et al, then you must have an inordinate faith in the efficiencies of government bureaucracies. I personally don't believe Big Brother is quite so on-the-ball. More likely it was a jumpy security guy, which is all the more likely considering it happened just a couple of months after the wave of London bombings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look mate, a whole country watched in horror as a doddery old man was dragged, not escorted, dragged from the conference by Blair's Brown Shirts for shouting the word 'nonsense' during Oberführer Straws speech. What you have written makes you appear not only naive but a supporter of what is being more commonly referred to as Police State, more widely in the 'free' world, the New World Order.

bbc story and video

neo-hippie malcontents who object to the murder in IRAQ, well, I guess I must be one of them then, I shall await the Jack-Boots kicking down my door with your blessing then.

You are the first person I have ever heard backing the treatment of Walter Wolfgang and the behaviour of the Brown Shirts outside the British Reich, maybe this is divide and conquer. Scary. I hope you are dusting off you Lederhosen, your time is coming!

 

[Gunfleet]

Hats off to Dogwatch

I can't do better than that. On another On another issue, where's your picture posting instructions nowadays?

 

[eidiohir]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

Can it be that one could now under the present law sail while drunk?I think not.
The fact is if you do, you could be prosecuted under any number of laws.In my view a policeman can stop anyone in a public place and if he/she thinks that they are drunk they can be prosecuted. It has for a long time been illegal to be drunk in public.
Why then bring in a law that will not help to keep the seaways safer?Could it be a case of empire building?I think that governments pass laws to control what they can control even if it helps no one not even themselves.May God save us from our saviours!

 

[Cruiser2B]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

Sorry for the delay, but it took several attempts before I could view the video. Thanks for that "mate", as it has only served to refine and solidify my initial opinion of Mr. Wolfgang. Contrary to his assertions after the fact, it is very clear in the video that he did not go peacably and did physically resist the stewards, when they asked him to leave. Contrary to previous reports, it is also clear that only one individual "man-handled" him out of his seat (though 3 took care of his younger friend). It was also very clear that his heckling persisted well beyond a single word; in a word the news reports were 'nonsense'. You can hear it during the video of Straw's speech - the commotion is fully audible: http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_4290000/newsid_4292500/4292530.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm
While I would have hoped that the BBC was the last bastion of journalastic integrity, it appears that it is not the case, evidenced by its decidedly one-sided reporting. One can only hope that your "whole country" is not so naive as to take the media reports at face value; that at least some can look at the facts and draw their own opinions.
I truly hope you are not a neo-hippie malcontent. I strongly support the right to peaceful protest. But I draw the line at public disorder and the herds of professional protesters who seem to have no occupation besides travelling from venue to venue for the sole purpose of causing commotion. G8 today, APEC tomorrow, anti-globalisation protest next week and so on. This group of protest pro's give a bad name to the legitimate protesters, by rounding up the lefties and disenfranchised youth and instructing them in civil disobedience and obstruction techniques. They actually run work-shops on "how to go limp", and their global influence is obvious when you look at pictures of the protests around the globe showing near-identical images of tie-dyed dreadlocked youth playing wet-sandbag while being dragged off by cops. Invariably these clowns resort rioting and vandalism - most often aimed at MacDonalds or Starbucks, but just as often getting the local little-guy shoppes as well.
Again, you bring up the issue of his age - what does that have to do with it - would it have mattered if he was 18 instead of 80? Does being an octogenarian give one the right to break laws, be disrespectful and disregard the mores of social conduct?
And don't trot out the "free speech" line - that had nothing to do with it either. It was not a public forum, it was a party conference (can't believe I'm doing this; it's not in my nature to support any liberal party) but the LP was well within its right to invite or disinvite whomever it pleased.
I don't know why it is that all liberal parties seem to have a need to employ goon squads, perhaps it's a holdover from their unionist pasts; but I'm rather disturbed by your repeated attempts to compare them to the Gestapo. That sort of hyperbole does little to aid your case. Worst yet is the media's none-too-subtle attempt to compare this event to the Holocaust, which is insulting to the memory of millions of murdered Jews.
As for "murder in Iraq" - you may want to tone it down a tad. Notwithstanding the political masters' unclear motivation for invading (and I have my own pet theories), the troops on the ground are mostly good, honourable people and not murderers - implying so only makes you look like a prat. imho

 

[Cruiser2B]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

Are there a number of laws? What specifically are they? It seems at least from another thread on this forum that prosecution is not presently guaranteed. I don't imagine the public drunkenness statute gets much of a work-out. Honestly, the streets are filled with drunks just after closing time - have you ever heard of anyone being busted for drunkenness? Maybe tacked on where there's also a "disturbing the peace" or "public urination" citation, but alone it's not easily enforceable. For that matter, does a boat constitute a "public place"? I don't think any law could guarantee safe seaways, but I fail to see how this one would not prevent a good portion of boaters from doing so while intoxicated. Ultimately that would lead to safer seaways. Is it "empire building"? I don't know - I didn't realize there was no democracy in the UK. I was completely unaware that your government was unelected and you had no representation. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif You may wish to immigrate to a country where you have a say in your government; just be aware that those without drunk boating laws are few and far between.

 

[Gunfleet]

troll NM

.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Actually less legislation

Getting back on topic, I finally had a chance to search for the "proposed legislation" and lo to my surprise I find the Railway and Transport Safety Act 2003 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/30020--e.htm#87) already has drunk boating restrictions, blood alcohol limits, etc for non-professional boaters, and presumably this has been in effect since 2003. Search the DfT site and it becomes clearer - the proposed amendments are not there to create drunk boating laws, but rather to exempt certain boats from the existing drunk-boating law (in this case all those under 7m and incapable of speeds exceeding 7 kts). But the BBC report (big surprise) at the start of this thread and much of the discusion left me with the impression that there was no legislation currently. Am I missing something?

 

[rickp]

Re: Actually less legislation

The law was written, but not commenced for non-professionals. They now propose to do that, with the arbitrary exceptions mentioned.

This url has the table of accidents which the MAIB deemed to be alcohol related. From 1991 to 2005 there were 7 leisure accidents related to alcohol and all of them are "Accident to vessel".

http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2005/nov/boatingaccidents/tableshowingnumberofaccident2490

Hardly makes a strong case for requiring legislation to be commenced, does it. Be better to enact a law requiring people to wear a life jacket in dinghies - would probably save more lives...

Rick

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

Re: Actually less legislation

How many gins/cans of CSB are premitted per diem, at sea, for matelots?

 

[Cruiser2B]

Re: Actually less legislation

[ QUOTE ]
The law was written, but not commenced for non-professionals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rick - I looked for "coming-into-force" dates or other indications that sect 80 wasn't in force, but found none. Can you tell me where it's stated that it has not been put into effect?

"This url has the table of accidents which the MAIB deemed to be alcohol related. From 1991 to 2005 there were 7 leisure accidents related to alcohol and all of them are "Accident to vessel"."

That's a DfT page, not MAIB; and it seems to be lacking. For example it lists no personal injuries for 2005 in the pleasure craft row, but the MAIB reported the collision of Carrie Kate and Kets caused 2 injuries and 1 fatality; and the Sea Snake accident caused 1 injury and 3 fatalities. Both accidents occured in 2005 and the helmsmen in all of boats had elevated BAC. Does four deaths in a single year make a strong enough case for legislation?

 

[rickp]

Re: Actually less legislation

[ QUOTE ]
Rick - I looked for "coming-into-force" dates or other indications that sect 80 wasn't in force, but found none. Can you tell me where it's stated that it has not been put into effect?

[/ QUOTE ]

Second hit in Google shows where it was excluded from commencement (just sub-sections 4 and 5 were commenced). Plus it was in the orignal press release from the DfT.

[ QUOTE ]
"This url has the table of accidents which the MAIB deemed to be alcohol related. From 1991 to 2005 there were 7 leisure accidents related to alcohol and all of them are "Accident to vessel"."

That's a DfT page, not MAIB; and it seems to be lacking. For example it lists no personal injuries for 2005 in the pleasure craft row, but the MAIB reported the collision of Carrie Kate and Kets caused 2 injuries and 1 fatality; and the Sea Snake accident caused 1 injury and 3 fatalities. Both accidents occured in 2005 and the helmsmen in all of boats had elevated BAC. Does four deaths in a single year make a strong enough case for legislation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the MAIB are within the auspices of the DfT and would have been consulted no doubt. As thats their answer to an FoI request, I took it on face value.

Even adding the 4 deaths you mention though I'd still say that 4 deaths in 14 years does not make a strong case for legislation. I could make a stronger case for legislating on life jackets in dinghies.

Rick

 

[RichardTaylor]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

I thought most pissed sailors were seen in unstable, overloaded 8ft tenders powered by a 2hp OBM at 2.5 knots to their boat having enjoyed an evening in the local bar or sailing club?

 

[Cruiser2B]

Re: Actually less legislation

Rick - very clear now, thank you.
Saw this article, and thought it timely: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/6744567.stm
150 hours of community service for killing someone - nice.

 

[Bergman]

Re: Actually less legislation

Perhaps if you had some grasp of the facts you would see that the 150 hrs of community punishment were for breaches of the regulations, about lighting I believe.

He was found not guilty of manslaughter and grievous bodily harm. Perhaps I should repeat this bit.

He was found not guilty of manslaughter and grievous bodily harm

Clearly the concepts of justice and the rule of law are quite alien to your philosophy but we do at least try to avoid punishing people who have been found not guilty.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Re: Actually less legislation

Bergman - I fully understand that he plead guilty to 3 offences under the MSA - speeding, no lights, and improper lookout and was handed the 150 hrs for that. That he got off scot-free from manslaughter charges is likely because there was no statute on the books preventing him from boating whilst plastered. The end result is that, despite having undeniable culpability in an accident that killed a man, this fellow's total debt to society is 150 hours of community service. I understand the concepts of justice and rule of law - how about you explain that to the dead chap's family.
Now speaking of philosophies, is the concept of polite discourse foreign to you?

 

[rickp]

Re: Actually less legislation

[ QUOTE ]
That he got off scot-free from manslaughter charges is likely because there was no statute on the books preventing him from boating whilst plastered.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a ludicrous claim.

Rick

 

[Bergman]

Re: Actually less legislation

He did not "get off scot free" He was found not guilty.

What is it that gives you the right to judge the outcome of a complex trial based on a few news reports. For example there is existing law that can be used to prosecute drunken sailing. It would seem that this was not appropriate to use or failed to be used properly.

However.

Not guilty is not guilty.

Whether or not you agree with it really is not relevant. We use a judge and jury to try crime not a remote, ill informed and biased opinion from someone who was not there.

Polite discourse is very familiar, but as a two way street.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Re: Actually less legislation

Tell me, what would be the likely outcome if a drunken driver ran down a drunk pedestrian? I would a manslaughter charge would stick. I'm open to your opinion on the matter though.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Re: Actually less legislation

I never claimed the right to judge this trial, but I have as much right as you do to have an opinion about it. That is why trials are public proceedings, is it not?
As for the two-way street, I think it's you who has started the disparaging comments.

 

[mono]

Re: Actually less legislation

[ QUOTE ]
I never claimed the right to judge this trial, but I have as much right as you do to have an opinion about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so but the difference is that you're the only one expressing an opinion. Bergman has merely stated the facts.

Big difference.