Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 4,227 - 4,238 of 6,170
It's a massively centralized system that someone has to manage. And there will always be the temptation for that someone to tamper with records to incriminate others or exonerate themselves. No, I'd have to say that would be a worst-case scenario recipe for an unprecedentedly totalitarian police state.
OK, so what makes you think the "lie detector" would not lead to a police state? Why would the government give control over that technology to the people? Why wouldn't people hack the lie detectors?
He'd lose the case - that law (while an ass,) is clear. And probably everything he owns would be swallowed up by the costs. And then the council would spitefully harrass and torment him, to death if it could, for his presumption in seeking to be treated as a free human being and not a potential criminal.
Are you sure?
Absolutely. The origin and nature of the material is irrelevant under the European directive that was rubber-stamped into our law books. And the owner of the sand is, in this case, de facto unsueable - a court wouldn't even allow papers to be filed. Couldn't, even if they wanted (which they wouldn't.)
It may be the case that the law is clear that he should not return sand he says came from the beach to the beach, but can't he force whoever controls the beach
No one controls the beach. The foreshore is the property of the Crown, but the Crown is statutorily exempt from prosecution.
to take steps to keep the sand on the beach in the first place? I am no expert on UK law, but the general US concept of nuisance comes from old English common law,
They're busily dismantling any such freedoms we used to enjoy here, by enacting ever more hair-splitting controls on the people into statute.
Try googling "Maya Evans" for an example of the police state this country has turned into. Arrested and convicted for reading out the names of fallen soldiers at a war memorial. I'm serious - I know how mad that sounds, so please do look it up.
Yu can be harrassed and dragged into court for wearing a T-shirt insulting Tony Blair. Not under any public order or obscenity laws - under the 2000 Terrorism Act (try googling "John Catt" Blair) Just daring to shout "rubbish" at your party conference can get you detained by the police under the same law (see "Walter Wolfgang".)
You can't even tackle a burglar in your home now without ending up in court - if any force was used, it must be tested in court, and if it's deemed "unreasonable force" you can go to prison. And people have. Tony Martin (try googling him too,) was convicted of murder and given life after he shot a burglar. An old man in a remote farmhouse, in fear of his life and with a legally owned shotgun. In a rural area where the police time was measurable in hours. It was later reduced to manslaughter on appeal, but he was still sued by the family of the dead criminal, and his house was rendered unfit to live in and valueless in his absence.
and there are at least some nuisance statutes on the books (I just did a quick google search, I didn't read them). Does the government have immunity?
From a charge of nuisance? Not as individuals, no. But collectively as agents of the Crown, yes. Absolute immunity. They can compulsorily purchase your home or business for any price they set in order to knock it down and build an Olympic facility on the site. Or a gas pipeline, or a new motorway, or anything they please. Or just to sit on it and profit from the increasing value of the land. They can arbitrarily deny permission to build anything on your own land. They can do what they like - there are no checks and balances any more. The House of Lords has been effectively abolished, the monarchy hasn't had any more than notional power in centuries. So any government can do what they please if they have a majority. And New Labour have managed to employ so many people in the public sector that now over a quarter of our population has a vested interest in voting for their employer. They're crap, unproductive jobs spying on the rest of us mostly, and figuring out how to squeeze more taxes out of us to further inflate the Party machine, but who's going to vote for an opposition that might make them redundant by slimming the waste?
What about in cases of negligence?
Utterly immune from charges of negligence, fairly obviously. They wouldn't be sending our soldiers to Iraq with shoddy (or no suitable) equipment, and then failing to provide adequate healthcare or financial assistance to wounded veterans. We send them out there with guns that won't work in ambient heat of 100'F, no body armour, unarmoured vehicles, they have to spend their own money on boots, half our helicopters in Afghanistan are out of operation because they've been stripped to keep the other half in any kind of airworthy condition, I could go on. They can't be sued for it, so I guess they're immune.
Letting sand constantly blow into others property when one is on notice of the problem sounds like it should violate some sort of English law. Then again, I don't know and won't take the time to really research it.
Even if it was from privately owned land, you'd have to sue the owner. And risk losing everything if you lost and had to pay all the legal costs of both parties. They'd take your house. Frankly they'd probably sell your internal organs if they thought they could get away with it.
I'm pleased to exercise my remaining freedom to call a police state a police state for the time being, but I'm under no illusions that it's not likely to end in a gulag or exile sooner or later. Or, if I'm very unlucky, an "accidental death while resisting arrest."
the solution (if there is one) lies in a change in people's attitudes. IF you can change peoples attitudes you wouldn't need to affix little boxes to them. After the lie detectors have been attached to everyone..There will be a public service anouncement..We notice too many people have red lights on their 'fizzyplexers' We have now come up with a method of 'mind-fix'. Don't worry it's a big improvement on the lobotomy....
seemingly to be speaking the truth.The thing that bothers me..I really believe that some of our leaders are not lying. I think they are just stupid! No doubt many believe what they say. Perhaps, if they set out to lie they wouldn't say such outlandish things.
IF you can change peoples attitudes you wouldn't need to affix little boxes to them.
Precisely.
But people with sane attitudes can probably use technology constructively in various ways. If someone wants to transform themselves into a more honest person, they probably don't need a fizzyplexer, but it might speed things up.
he stated openly that the rancher in question should have "shot, shovelled and shut up."
Hey this guy is telling the TRUTH..as he saw it.
Yes, but only built on a lifetime of lies. He's a politician - he figures he can say that and play to some constituency or other that won't press him hard on matters of "what he really believes".
You just need the opportunity to put the question "do you really believe that, or are you just pandering to a denialist lobby in pursuit of a few more votes come the next election" while you're pointing an i-Truth at him. And preferably while everyone in earshot is also pointing their i-Truths at him.
Posts 4,227 - 4,238 of 6,170
OK, so what makes you think the "lie detector" would not lead to a police state? Why would the government give control over that technology to the people? Why wouldn't people hack the lie detectors?
So...as I suggested before [preens] there's no technology that can't be corrupted? Then the core of the solution (if there is one) lies in a change in people's attitudes. Crazed people use technology for crazy reasons to do crazy things.
Absolutely. The origin and nature of the material is irrelevant under the European directive that was rubber-stamped into our law books. And the owner of the sand is, in this case, de facto unsueable - a court wouldn't even allow papers to be filed. Couldn't, even if they wanted (which they wouldn't.)
No one controls the beach. The foreshore is the property of the Crown, but the Crown is statutorily exempt from prosecution.
They're busily dismantling any such freedoms we used to enjoy here, by enacting ever more hair-splitting controls on the people into statute.
Try googling "Maya Evans" for an example of the police state this country has turned into. Arrested and convicted for reading out the names of fallen soldiers at a war memorial. I'm serious - I know how mad that sounds, so please do look it up.
Yu can be harrassed and dragged into court for wearing a T-shirt insulting Tony Blair. Not under any public order or obscenity laws - under the 2000 Terrorism Act (try googling "John Catt" Blair) Just daring to shout "rubbish" at your party conference can get you detained by the police under the same law (see "Walter Wolfgang".)
You can't even tackle a burglar in your home now without ending up in court - if any force was used, it must be tested in court, and if it's deemed "unreasonable force" you can go to prison. And people have. Tony Martin (try googling him too,) was convicted of murder and given life after he shot a burglar. An old man in a remote farmhouse, in fear of his life and with a legally owned shotgun. In a rural area where the police time was measurable in hours. It was later reduced to manslaughter on appeal, but he was still sued by the family of the dead criminal, and his house was rendered unfit to live in and valueless in his absence.
From a charge of nuisance? Not as individuals, no. But collectively as agents of the Crown, yes. Absolute immunity. They can compulsorily purchase your home or business for any price they set in order to knock it down and build an Olympic facility on the site. Or a gas pipeline, or a new motorway, or anything they please. Or just to sit on it and profit from the increasing value of the land. They can arbitrarily deny permission to build anything on your own land. They can do what they like - there are no checks and balances any more. The House of Lords has been effectively abolished, the monarchy hasn't had any more than notional power in centuries. So any government can do what they please if they have a majority. And New Labour have managed to employ so many people in the public sector that now over a quarter of our population has a vested interest in voting for their employer. They're crap, unproductive jobs spying on the rest of us mostly, and figuring out how to squeeze more taxes out of us to further inflate the Party machine, but who's going to vote for an opposition that might make them redundant by slimming the waste?
Utterly immune from charges of negligence, fairly obviously. They wouldn't be sending our soldiers to Iraq with shoddy (or no suitable) equipment, and then failing to provide adequate healthcare or financial assistance to wounded veterans. We send them out there with guns that won't work in ambient heat of 100'F, no body armour, unarmoured vehicles, they have to spend their own money on boots, half our helicopters in Afghanistan are out of operation because they've been stripped to keep the other half in any kind of airworthy condition, I could go on. They can't be sued for it, so I guess they're immune.
Even if it was from privately owned land, you'd have to sue the owner. And risk losing everything if you lost and had to pay all the legal costs of both parties. They'd take your house. Frankly they'd probably sell your internal organs if they thought they could get away with it.
I'm pleased to exercise my remaining freedom to call a police state a police state for the time being, but I'm under no illusions that it's not likely to end in a gulag or exile sooner or later. Or, if I'm very unlucky, an "accidental death while resisting arrest."
Another very good reason why the technology's better employed in the hands of those who want to be sure they're being told the truth, not those who have an interest in only seemingly to be speaking the truth.
I want a scanner, or I too am off to the woods to join a commune when this technology arrives. But I'm reasonably optimistic that it's no harder to implement that way, and that enough people will agree to tip the balance that way.
I want a scanner, or I too am off to the woods to join a commune when this technology arrives. But I'm reasonably optimistic that it's no harder to implement that way, and that enough people will agree to tip the balance that way.
Then they could be gently educated by completely honest discussion with no subtexts. But there's no doubt in my mind that Bush knew the case for WMD's in Iraq was at best very shaky. Or the people who briefed him did.
He exaggerated and gambled. And ultimately we all lose out, even (perhaps especially,) the Iraqi people.
He exaggerated and gambled. And ultimately we all lose out, even (perhaps especially,) the Iraqi people.
But people with sane attitudes can probably use technology constructively in various ways. If someone wants to transform themselves into a more honest person, they probably don't need a fizzyplexer, but it might speed things up.
Any man that can say things like: "I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy."—Redwood, Calif., Sept. 27, 2000
One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above that which is expected."—Los Angeles, Sept. 27, 2000
The reason we start a war is to fight a war, win a war, thereby causing no more war!"
--The first Presidential debate
It beats Cananda's Ralph Klein and Steven Harper famous lines, at least Klein admits he drank too much. Just before Christmas one year, he dropped by an Edmonton homeless shelter, extremely drunk, and verbally abused the residents, offering them all "bus tickets to Vancouver" where they could enjoy the superior social assistance of the province of British Columbia. After the story broke, he admitted that he was an alcoholic (not news to anyone who had ever seen him in public) and vowed to do his best never to drink again.
Now how is a box going to help?
One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above that which is expected."—Los Angeles, Sept. 27, 2000
The reason we start a war is to fight a war, win a war, thereby causing no more war!"
--The first Presidential debate
It beats Cananda's Ralph Klein and Steven Harper famous lines, at least Klein admits he drank too much. Just before Christmas one year, he dropped by an Edmonton homeless shelter, extremely drunk, and verbally abused the residents, offering them all "bus tickets to Vancouver" where they could enjoy the superior social assistance of the province of British Columbia. After the story broke, he admitted that he was an alcoholic (not news to anyone who had ever seen him in public) and vowed to do his best never to drink again.
Now how is a box going to help?
Prob123 4232:
Yes, I think that is often so; for example, to drag their feet on global warming is not in anyone's long-term interest, I should think. Moral idiocy does not guarantee Machiavellian brilliance.
Yes, I think that is often so; for example, to drag their feet on global warming is not in anyone's long-term interest, I should think. Moral idiocy does not guarantee Machiavellian brilliance.
Even when our leaders tell the truth it is frightening. Ralph Klein when a case of mad cow disease was discovered in Alberta, he stated openly that the rancher in question should have "shot, shovelled and shut up."
Hey this guy is telling the TRUTH..as he saw it.
Jean Chrétien (1934-)
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven."
These guys are honest..Now that is what is the scariest part. No bit of machinery is going to help..People don't know how to chose leaders!
Hey this guy is telling the TRUTH..as he saw it.
Jean Chrétien (1934-)
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven."
These guys are honest..Now that is what is the scariest part. No bit of machinery is going to help..People don't know how to chose leaders!
Hey this guy is telling the TRUTH..as he saw it.
Yes, but only built on a lifetime of lies. He's a politician - he figures he can say that and play to some constituency or other that won't press him hard on matters of "what he really believes".
You just need the opportunity to put the question "do you really believe that, or are you just pandering to a denialist lobby in pursuit of a few more votes come the next election" while you're pointing an i-Truth at him. And preferably while everyone in earshot is also pointing their i-Truths at him.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar