Targeting criminals same as targeting poor people???
25-12-2009, 10:06 PM
#86
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Someone driving more miles buys more fuel and is at more risk of an accident than someone doing low miles, but isn't necessarily a bigger risk - either because of skill, experience, or attitude.
Then there is the value of the car to be insured - someone in a big, old inefficient car because he can't afford a newer car, uses more fuel but replacing his car would cost a lot less than the riskier driver in the new, expensive car. So to say that the duty on fuel should cover your insurance is nonsensical.
I don't approve of much of what the government does, but if they don't take the money from us in discretionary taxes, like those on motoring, they will have to take it from direct taxation. Either way we pay, but at least this way we have some element of choice about whether to pay and how much to pay.
25-12-2009, 10:28 PM
#88
Er, yeah, OK.
Someone driving more miles buys more fuel and is at more risk of an accident than someone doing low miles, but isn't necessarily a bigger risk - either because of skill, experience, or attitude.
Then there is the value of the car to be insured - someone in a big, old inefficient car because he can't afford a newer car, uses more fuel but replacing his car would cost a lot less than the riskier driver in the new, expensive car. So to say that the duty on fuel should cover your insurance is nonsensical.
I don't approve of much of what the government does, but if they don't take the money from us in discretionary taxes, like those on motoring, they will have to take it from direct taxation. Either way we pay, but at least this way we have some element of choice about whether to pay and how much to pay.
Someone driving more miles buys more fuel and is at more risk of an accident than someone doing low miles, but isn't necessarily a bigger risk - either because of skill, experience, or attitude.
Then there is the value of the car to be insured - someone in a big, old inefficient car because he can't afford a newer car, uses more fuel but replacing his car would cost a lot less than the riskier driver in the new, expensive car. So to say that the duty on fuel should cover your insurance is nonsensical.
I don't approve of much of what the government does, but if they don't take the money from us in discretionary taxes, like those on motoring, they will have to take it from direct taxation. Either way we pay, but at least this way we have some element of choice about whether to pay and how much to pay.
How do we have a choice ? If we want to drive, we pay a fucking fortune., with dozens of laws to fine us if we dont, or threaten theft of our property. And then every other week a new law or fine is created to make them more money.
Motoring for me in many respects is a hobby.....why the hell should that hobby be taxed as heavily as it is ? Income tax is supposed to fund the running of the country, not motorists.
And how exactly does basic third party legal cover thats required have anything to do with the value or age of the car ?
It doesnt at all.
And who says a big old car will use more fuel than a big newer car ?
Fuel consumption figures havent improved dramatically for any big cars that Ive seen over the past 10-15 years or so. Hell, even my big ole shitbox can manage fuel consumptiuon better than a lot of Evo's etc
If the government wanted to sort the uninsured driver problem, they could do so very easily. If basic third party cover was on the cost of fuel...after extortionate taxes are removed of course. EVERY driver would be covered. Thats so simple, even the dumbest person should see it.
Some may pay more, some may pay less. What difference does it make ? The vehicle, old or new can still do a lot of damage to whatever it hits. The vehicle being driven is totally irrelevant.
The legal requirement of third party cover has fuck all to do with the vehicle being driven. Its only to ensure the third party gets some form of financial compensation if there is an accident.
But thats getting off topic.
The legal sytem does penalise those less well off in many ways, that is of course until you get to the real criminal level. Then the legal system seems to be their best friend.
25-12-2009, 10:41 PM
#89
PassionFord Post Whore!!
????
How do we have a choice ? If we want to drive, we pay a fucking fortune.
And how exactly does basic third party legal cover thats required have anything to do with the value or age of the car ?
It doesnt at all.
And who says a big old car will use more fuel than a big newer car ?
Fuel consumption figures havent improved dramatically for any big cars that Ive seen over the past 10-15 years or so. Hell, even my big ole shitbox can manage fuel consumptiuon better than a lot of Evo's etc
If the government wanted to sort the uninsured driver problem, they could do so very easily. If basic third party cover was on the cost of fuel...after extortionate taxes are removed of course. EVERY driver would be covered. Thats so simple, even the dumbest person should see it.
Some may pay more, some may pay less. What difference does it make ? The vehicle, old or new can still do a lot of damage to whatever it hits. The vehicle being driven is totally irrelevant.
The legal requirement of third party cover has fuck all to do with the vehicle being driven. Its only to ensure the third party gets some form of financial compensation if there is an accident.
How do we have a choice ? If we want to drive, we pay a fucking fortune.
And how exactly does basic third party legal cover thats required have anything to do with the value or age of the car ?
It doesnt at all.
And who says a big old car will use more fuel than a big newer car ?
Fuel consumption figures havent improved dramatically for any big cars that Ive seen over the past 10-15 years or so. Hell, even my big ole shitbox can manage fuel consumptiuon better than a lot of Evo's etc
If the government wanted to sort the uninsured driver problem, they could do so very easily. If basic third party cover was on the cost of fuel...after extortionate taxes are removed of course. EVERY driver would be covered. Thats so simple, even the dumbest person should see it.
Some may pay more, some may pay less. What difference does it make ? The vehicle, old or new can still do a lot of damage to whatever it hits. The vehicle being driven is totally irrelevant.
The legal requirement of third party cover has fuck all to do with the vehicle being driven. Its only to ensure the third party gets some form of financial compensation if there is an accident.
The cost of 3rd party cover won't have anything to do with the value of the car YOU drive, but the performance of that car and the skills, experience or attitude of the driver WILL decide the claim rates, so why should careful, low mileage drivers pay even more for this "free insurance for all"?
The fuel economy of modern cars has improved hugely over recent years, partly as more have moved to diesel but who would have seen cars coming to market with the claimed economy of some new cars? That means the poor people, driving older, less efficient cars will need to pay for more fuel to cover the same distance as better-off people driving the newer cars. And as you are the one moaning about discrimination against poor people I would have thought that you could see that.
And while I feel terribly sorry for the innocent victims of accidents, I don't actually feel that it is up to me to compensate them, unless I'm the one who caused the accident.
Maybe North Korea would suit your requirements. Though you wouldn't be very free to live your life your way there!
Last edited by Iain Mac; 25-12-2009 at 10:45 PM.
25-12-2009, 11:11 PM
#90
You miss it completely.
Many people have little control over where they work. So they do not choose to live miles away from their work and drive to it. Sometimes there is little choice.
In my previous job as an electrician, I could work anywhere from down the street, to maybe a hundred miles away. I guess you think carrying tools/equipment etc on public transport is a sensible or practical option for that ? Or maybe I should move house every day to one near my job ? Or just buy multiple houses ?
No....not everyone sits on their ass in a lazy office job all day. Some people actually NEED to travel in the course of their work. In fact I suspect millions do. No form of public transport can accomodate that. Even more so over here, as the public transport system is totally shit, largely due to the semi rural nature of the country.
Work available has changed a lot over the years, many jobs are within the big cities...but then, many people cant afford to live in teh city, so again they need to move further afield and commute.. Many years ago, villages and towns were built around large workplaces, so people didnt need to commute as you say.
The world has changed a lot since then !!!
Some people cant live near their work...as their workplace moves. And that does cover a hell of a lot of people. Its only the naive lazy gits who sit on their fat asses in an office, who cant see that.
Well, politicians can see the awkwardness of working away from where you live.....except they get free second homes bought and paid for by us so they dont have to pay like we do to travel. They just get us to buy them homes near their work !. Then they get free transport and cars to chauffeur them about.
3rd party insurance oddly does vary on the car being insured, and doesnt take into consideration skill or attitude of any driver. Previous no claims is no real reflection of this. If anything, more modern cars should pay a lot more insurance, as they cost far more to repair. Many even being written off with minor damage due to the massive repair costs.
I suspect small cheap cars are involved in more accidents than larger high performance cars, and can do equally as much damage. And that careful low milage driver wont pay anywhere near as much....as they wont be using as much fuel. Simple.
And you already pay for others accidents anyway. Insurance goes into a pool of money, so everyone pays....well, what isnt taken oiut as insurance tax by the government. SO you, as a motorist are already compensating these people, probably a hell of a lot more than need be.
So which would be better ? Every motorist paying into an insurance fund via fuel costs ? Or having millions of un-insured drivers who pay absolutely nothing that they will never sort out ? And we the insured drivers end up paying for them anyway.
It really cant be that difficult of a question to answer.
Many people have little control over where they work. So they do not choose to live miles away from their work and drive to it. Sometimes there is little choice.
In my previous job as an electrician, I could work anywhere from down the street, to maybe a hundred miles away. I guess you think carrying tools/equipment etc on public transport is a sensible or practical option for that ? Or maybe I should move house every day to one near my job ? Or just buy multiple houses ?
No....not everyone sits on their ass in a lazy office job all day. Some people actually NEED to travel in the course of their work. In fact I suspect millions do. No form of public transport can accomodate that. Even more so over here, as the public transport system is totally shit, largely due to the semi rural nature of the country.
Work available has changed a lot over the years, many jobs are within the big cities...but then, many people cant afford to live in teh city, so again they need to move further afield and commute.. Many years ago, villages and towns were built around large workplaces, so people didnt need to commute as you say.
The world has changed a lot since then !!!
Some people cant live near their work...as their workplace moves. And that does cover a hell of a lot of people. Its only the naive lazy gits who sit on their fat asses in an office, who cant see that.
Well, politicians can see the awkwardness of working away from where you live.....except they get free second homes bought and paid for by us so they dont have to pay like we do to travel. They just get us to buy them homes near their work !. Then they get free transport and cars to chauffeur them about.
The cost of 3rd party cover won't have anything to do with the value of the car YOU drive, but the performance of that car and the skills, experience or attitude of the driver WILL decide the claim rates, so why should careful, low mileage drivers pay even more for this "free insurance for all"?
I suspect small cheap cars are involved in more accidents than larger high performance cars, and can do equally as much damage. And that careful low milage driver wont pay anywhere near as much....as they wont be using as much fuel. Simple.
And you already pay for others accidents anyway. Insurance goes into a pool of money, so everyone pays....well, what isnt taken oiut as insurance tax by the government. SO you, as a motorist are already compensating these people, probably a hell of a lot more than need be.
So which would be better ? Every motorist paying into an insurance fund via fuel costs ? Or having millions of un-insured drivers who pay absolutely nothing that they will never sort out ? And we the insured drivers end up paying for them anyway.
It really cant be that difficult of a question to answer.
25-12-2009, 11:29 PM
#91
PassionFord Post Whore!!
I'm over in holland at the min and went to the local pub where everyone was smoking inside. Woke up the next day with a sore throat and stinking like an ashtray, funny thing is even the smokers were saying how horrible it was inside the pub and that it made them realise the smoking ban is a good thing.
Not very relevent bt food for thought
Not very relevent bt food for thought
26-12-2009, 01:42 AM
#93
PassionFord Post Whore!!
You know what i cant understand, how can anyone with an ouse of sense be pro smoking? There is not 1 thing that people benefit from smoking but many a downside, i can understand why people get pissed or do drugs or anything that has risk of health associated with it as they get pleasure from it but smoking i just dont get lol.
I understand that its each to there own and smokers have the right to smoke as its there choice in life but just cant understand why anyone would want to smoke?
Any smokers care to enlighten me on why they smoke and what they get from smoking ? There must be something good that out weights or equals all the health risks to make it worth while smoking surely?
I understand that its each to there own and smokers have the right to smoke as its there choice in life but just cant understand why anyone would want to smoke?
Any smokers care to enlighten me on why they smoke and what they get from smoking ? There must be something good that out weights or equals all the health risks to make it worth while smoking surely?
26-12-2009, 01:52 AM
#94
Ban[B][/B]ned
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Pool.
Posts: 34,090
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know what i cant understand, how can anyone with an ouse of sense be pro smoking? There is not 1 thing that people benefit from smoking but many a downside, i can understand why people get pissed or do drugs or anything that has risk of health associated with it as they get pleasure from it but smoking i just dont get lol.
Benni.
26-12-2009, 01:56 AM
#95
you really are dumb if you think this is a free country!
you think i have power? security guards have virtually no powers or responsibility!
Why would i wish i not posted? Should i be afraid of an arguement over the internet and what a few people who ive never met think of me? Get real.
Maybe people should keep on the original topic.
you think i have power? security guards have virtually no powers or responsibility! Why would i wish i not posted? Should i be afraid of an arguement over the internet and what a few people who ive never met think of me? Get real.
Maybe people should keep on the original topic.
26-12-2009, 02:04 AM
#96
all fines are means tested specifically so that poor people dont get penalised proportionality more. of course the rich wont care if its a Ł60 fine or Ł10k as they can afford it but that situation wont effect 99% of people getting fines.
26-12-2009, 05:50 AM
#97
PassionFord Post Whore!!
I dont see me mates buzzing off there tits after having a fag lol
You say people get pleasure from smoking, obviously they must do otherwise they wouldnt smoke, so what is the pleasure? thats what i'm asking.
26-12-2009, 09:11 AM
#99
i am the sort of working class person who wants to live life my way in a country where you dont get fined for everything you do ie snowed this week ,we live on a hill so a lot of folk could not get there cars up and had to leave them at the bottom of the hill,result 45 parking tickets on cars that could not go anywhere,and as for being able to smell smoke and drink on people what about people that dont have a bath or asian people that smell do we ban them from city centres as well
26-12-2009, 09:33 AM
#100
PassionFord Post Whore!!
You miss it completely.
Many people have little control over where they work. So they do not choose to live miles away from their work and drive to it. Sometimes there is little choice.
In my previous job as an electrician, I could work anywhere from down the street, to maybe a hundred miles away. I guess you think carrying tools/equipment etc on public transport is a sensible or practical option for that ? Or maybe I should move house every day to one near my job ? Or just buy multiple houses ?
No....not everyone sits on their ass in a lazy office job all day. Some people actually NEED to travel in the course of their work. In fact I suspect millions do. No form of public transport can accomodate that. Even more so over here, as the public transport system is totally shit, largely due to the semi rural nature of the country.
Work available has changed a lot over the years, many jobs are within the big cities...but then, many people cant afford to live in teh city, so again they need to move further afield and commute.. Many years ago, villages and towns were built around large workplaces, so people didnt need to commute as you say.
The world has changed a lot since then !!!
Some people cant live near their work...as their workplace moves. And that does cover a hell of a lot of people. Its only the naive lazy gits who sit on their fat asses in an office, who cant see that.
Well, politicians can see the awkwardness of working away from where you live.....except they get free second homes bought and paid for by us so they dont have to pay like we do to travel. They just get us to buy them homes near their work !. Then they get free transport and cars to chauffeur them about.
3rd party insurance oddly does vary on the car being insured, and doesnt take into consideration skill or attitude of any driver. Previous no claims is no real reflection of this. If anything, more modern cars should pay a lot more insurance, as they cost far more to repair. Many even being written off with minor damage due to the massive repair costs.
I suspect small cheap cars are involved in more accidents than larger high performance cars, and can do equally as much damage. And that careful low milage driver wont pay anywhere near as much....as they wont be using as much fuel. Simple.
And you already pay for others accidents anyway. Insurance goes into a pool of money, so everyone pays....well, what isnt taken oiut as insurance tax by the government. SO you, as a motorist are already compensating these people, probably a hell of a lot more than need be.
So which would be better ? Every motorist paying into an insurance fund via fuel costs ? Or having millions of un-insured drivers who pay absolutely nothing that they will never sort out ? And we the insured drivers end up paying for them anyway.
It really cant be that difficult of a question to answer.
Many people have little control over where they work. So they do not choose to live miles away from their work and drive to it. Sometimes there is little choice.
In my previous job as an electrician, I could work anywhere from down the street, to maybe a hundred miles away. I guess you think carrying tools/equipment etc on public transport is a sensible or practical option for that ? Or maybe I should move house every day to one near my job ? Or just buy multiple houses ?
No....not everyone sits on their ass in a lazy office job all day. Some people actually NEED to travel in the course of their work. In fact I suspect millions do. No form of public transport can accomodate that. Even more so over here, as the public transport system is totally shit, largely due to the semi rural nature of the country.
Work available has changed a lot over the years, many jobs are within the big cities...but then, many people cant afford to live in teh city, so again they need to move further afield and commute.. Many years ago, villages and towns were built around large workplaces, so people didnt need to commute as you say.
The world has changed a lot since then !!!
Some people cant live near their work...as their workplace moves. And that does cover a hell of a lot of people. Its only the naive lazy gits who sit on their fat asses in an office, who cant see that.
Well, politicians can see the awkwardness of working away from where you live.....except they get free second homes bought and paid for by us so they dont have to pay like we do to travel. They just get us to buy them homes near their work !. Then they get free transport and cars to chauffeur them about.
3rd party insurance oddly does vary on the car being insured, and doesnt take into consideration skill or attitude of any driver. Previous no claims is no real reflection of this. If anything, more modern cars should pay a lot more insurance, as they cost far more to repair. Many even being written off with minor damage due to the massive repair costs.
I suspect small cheap cars are involved in more accidents than larger high performance cars, and can do equally as much damage. And that careful low milage driver wont pay anywhere near as much....as they wont be using as much fuel. Simple.
And you already pay for others accidents anyway. Insurance goes into a pool of money, so everyone pays....well, what isnt taken oiut as insurance tax by the government. SO you, as a motorist are already compensating these people, probably a hell of a lot more than need be.
So which would be better ? Every motorist paying into an insurance fund via fuel costs ? Or having millions of un-insured drivers who pay absolutely nothing that they will never sort out ? And we the insured drivers end up paying for them anyway.
It really cant be that difficult of a question to answer.
But I eventually realised that the reality is that if the Government did scrap the tax disc they would create a new disc fee, maybe an "insurance and MOT" inspection tax where we'd need to produce our documents once a year and buy a disc to show the docs had been checked. That would maybe start out quite cheap but would gradually increase to where we are now ON TOP of the fuel levy we would all be paying.
In the same way, I'm willing to bet that our insurance WOULDN'T get cheaper, we'd just have this extra levy and we'd all end up paying more.
Everyone would know it's horseshit, but money is money, right!
Carrying tools, photocopiers, sample windows or whatever isn't viable on public transport - I never said it was, same as I said public transport, walking etc are only options in some areas. We live in the sticks so it doesn't work for us, but I cover the whole of Scotland and Northern England so nowhere would give me the links I would need - at least here I'm roughly equidistant to my main customer bases.
Don't get me started on politicians and their second homes - the allowance was supposed to be so that they could have a place near Westminster. It was never meant to pay for the family home in Kirkcaldy, Norwich or wherever, and it was never meant to be about about accommodating their family in London so one bedroom flats are all that they needed - anything above that should have came from their own pocket.
To kick-start the housing market when London prices collapsed, the government should have bought loads of one bedroom flats all around the area and these could be allocated to MPs on election to live in while in London. When they get promoted to a post with a grace and favour pad, like PM, Chancellor, Speaker, etc, or lose their seat, the flats can be refurbished and reallocated.
Hell, why don't we compulsorily purchase all the flats bought by MPs and use those? At the price they paid, of course so no-one profits from the situation.
26-12-2009, 10:56 AM
#101
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: burnley
Posts: 1,949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i would like to apologise to all on this site who have had the unfortunate pleasure of reading posts placed by my numb brother yesterday,i made the mistake of introducing him to the site and allowed him to browse while signed in on my account.when i got up this morning i could not believe what he had wrote and would like all concerned to know that lucky i do not share his narrow minded stupid comments that in all honesty do not make much sense at all even to me and i have grown up with the moron once again sorry to you all this is a mistake i will not be repeating again taught me a lesson also that no one will be using any account of mine he has also done the same to my facebook,and bid on items on ebay
26-12-2009, 11:02 AM
#102
14000+ post superhero
You know what i cant understand, how can anyone with an ouse of sense be pro smoking? There is not 1 thing that people benefit from smoking but many a downside, i can understand why people get pissed or do drugs or anything that has risk of health associated with it as they get pleasure from it but smoking i just dont get lol.
I understand that its each to there own and smokers have the right to smoke as its there choice in life but just cant understand why anyone would want to smoke?
Any smokers care to enlighten me on why they smoke and what they get from smoking ? There must be something good that out weights or equals all the health risks to make it worth while smoking surely?
I understand that its each to there own and smokers have the right to smoke as its there choice in life but just cant understand why anyone would want to smoke?
Any smokers care to enlighten me on why they smoke and what they get from smoking ? There must be something good that out weights or equals all the health risks to make it worth while smoking surely?
26-12-2009, 11:03 AM
#103
14000+ post superhero
i would like to apologise to all on this site who have had the unfortunate pleasure of reading posts placed by my numb brother yesterday,i made the mistake of introducing him to the site and allowed him to browse while signed in on my account.when i got up this morning i could not believe what he had wrote and would like all concerned to know that lucky i do not share his narrow minded stupid comments that in all honesty do not make much sense at all even to me and i have grown up with the moron once again sorry to you all this is a mistake i will not be repeating again taught me a lesson also that no one will be using any account of mine he has also done the same to my facebook,and bid on items on ebay
26-12-2009, 11:18 AM
#104
PassionFord Post Whore!!
26-12-2009, 11:57 AM
#105
Ban[B][/B]ned
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Pool.
Posts: 34,090
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didnt say any drug was acceptable, what i did say is i can understand why people take them, ie smoke blow you get stoned etc.
I dont see me mates buzzing off there tits after having a fag lol
You say people get pleasure from smoking, obviously they must do otherwise they wouldnt smoke, so what is the pleasure? thats what i'm asking.
I dont see me mates buzzing off there tits after having a fag lol
You say people get pleasure from smoking, obviously they must do otherwise they wouldnt smoke, so what is the pleasure? thats what i'm asking.
Benni.
26-12-2009, 11:59 AM
#106
Ban[B][/B]ned
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Pool.
Posts: 34,090
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i would like to apologise to all on this site who have had the unfortunate pleasure of reading posts placed by my numb brother yesterday,i made the mistake of introducing him to the site and allowed him to browse while signed in on my account.when i got up this morning i could not believe what he had wrote and would like all concerned to know that lucky i do not share his narrow minded stupid comments that in all honesty do not make much sense at all even to me and i have grown up with the moron once again sorry to you all this is a mistake i will not be repeating again taught me a lesson also that no one will be using any account of mine he has also done the same to my facebook,and bid on items on ebay
Benni.
26-12-2009, 12:01 PM
#107
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: burnley
Posts: 1,949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
26-12-2009, 12:06 PM
#108
26-12-2009, 02:18 PM
#109
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 5,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smokers are very selfish people, generally speaking of course, there might be a few that are the exception to the rule.
Im all for people doing as they please if its within the law, and even sometimes if it isnt i might add, but when it starts to affect other people, then it becomes selfish and anti-social. This was a major reason for the smoking ban and rightly so. The selfish smelly shit bags.
Im all for people doing as they please if its within the law, and even sometimes if it isnt i might add, but when it starts to affect other people, then it becomes selfish and anti-social. This was a major reason for the smoking ban and rightly so. The selfish smelly shit bags.
26-12-2009, 07:07 PM
#110
Just like doing 60mph is not bad but its breaking the law in a 30/40/50mph zone!
This thead wasnt a joke until the militant pro-smokers jumped on the defensive bandwagon!
The thread was actually about criminals (eg theifs/burglars/antisocial behaviour etc ) who seem to in increasing numbers feel victimised by police because they are 'poor'.
Such criminals fail to understand that the police are tagetting them because they commit crime not because they earn low incomes. Although the reality is most criminals are on benefits as well as thier criminal earnings so are consideraly financially better off than most other residents on thier estate!
26-12-2009, 07:29 PM
#112
@ fuzzy! problem is we still need some poor people to do shitty jobs rich folk wont do!
On the other hand killing all unemployed people would reduce crime massively and put country in better financial state! obviously its a bit extreme but slightly less 'collateral damage' than killing all poor people!!
26-12-2009, 07:38 PM
#113
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quality thread. The stupid comments just show that some people just don't seem to understand the basics of a society. There are rules and you should stick to the rules. If you get caught breaking the rules, then you have done something wrong and should be penalized. There are several elements of society who will say they are being persecuted and some of these actually believe it to be true. Unfortunately the people who fall into this bracket are often poor and think they are owed something. Fact is whether you are caught smoking in a banned area or blowing a goat, you are a criminal, thats the law. If you dont mind people breaking the law, then I will come round to your house and steal your front doormat. Its alright, its only a doormat after all. If the police try and get me for this I will just call them a jobsworth, there are worse crimes, right?
26-12-2009, 08:01 PM
#115
Quality thread. The stupid comments just show that some people just don't seem to understand the basics of a society. There are rules and you should stick to the rules. If you get caught breaking the rules, then you have done something wrong and should be penalized. There are several elements of society who will say they are being persecuted and some of these actually believe it to be true. Unfortunately the people who fall into this bracket are often poor and think they are owed something. Fact is whether you are caught smoking in a banned area or blowing a goat, you are a criminal, thats the law. If you dont mind people breaking the law, then I will come round to your house and steal your front doormat. Its alright, its only a doormat after all. If the police try and get me for this I will just call them a jobsworth, there are worse crimes, right?
26-12-2009, 08:03 PM
#116
14000+ post superhero
it doesnt matter if you think they are right. its not up to you to pick and choose which laws you want to obey. thats why we vote and have a democracy.
26-12-2009, 08:16 PM
#117
And these people in government certainly do not listen to the people when making these laws.
It is supposed to be a democracy....but I'm not convinced.
26-12-2009, 08:22 PM
#118
exactly fuzzy!
If people dont like it they can fuck off abroad or use the democratic process to argue thier cause. smokers will ALWAYS be on a loosing streak as the government has medical proof and plenty of social evidence to back thier anti-smoker policys.
What i find funny is that all the criminals go on about thier individual rights yet fail to understand the concept that with rights comes responsibility for your own actions!
People always have a choice between crime or not. nobody needs to commit crime to survive in UK!
If people dont like it they can fuck off abroad or use the democratic process to argue thier cause. smokers will ALWAYS be on a loosing streak as the government has medical proof and plenty of social evidence to back thier anti-smoker policys.
What i find funny is that all the criminals go on about thier individual rights yet fail to understand the concept that with rights comes responsibility for your own actions!
People always have a choice between crime or not. nobody needs to commit crime to survive in UK!
26-12-2009, 08:30 PM
#120
We do. We are still under UK law...so thats decided at Westminster. We have no say in those elections.
In local elections.....we vote...and they let terrorists into government.
I really dont understand politics at all, but there is little just or right about much of it.
Just because the government creates new, and often very stupid laws, still doesnt make them right. Nor does it suddenly make people criminals.
There is plenty of real crime out there, under laws that have been around for years, that the police etc dont even bother their arse with. You'd think they would try and sort those out first, before worrying about poxy stuff.
Nearly every day on the news here before Xmas, pensioners were robbed and beaten in their homes every single night.
I bet more motorists were convicted of petty offences while these took place. I certainly dont agree with smoking, it stinks. The smoking ban in public places etc is great.
But are people who flout this law criminals ??
I think thats taking it a bit too far.