Guest Had Enough Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 pepe63 - 2014-02-03 1:31 PM CliveH - 2014-02-03 8:56 AM But the issue is here is exactly as Teflon points out - we risk making the Law more of an ass than it is already because to be effective a law has to be enforceable. So how the hell anyone expects our Police on the streets to be able to catch anyone smoking a fag in a car who may or may or not have kids in the back amazes me. But WHY wouldn't this be enforceable?...Presumably they(plod) would just use the same methods that they've used to catch those who use mobile phones, or fail to wear seatbelts..? They'd "look"! It's hardly "amazing"...? 8-) The chances of them catching the toe rag who breaks into your house or shed, are pretty slim...So does that mean we just shouldn't bother with making it an illegal act then.... :-S I'm finding the cognitive powers of some of my fellow citizens to be quite scary! First of all when I pointed out, as you have done, that enforcing this law will be as easy as enforcing seat belt wearing or talking on mobile phones I was told by Teflon2 to 'Use my brains' as in his area all the children are driven to school in SUVs with darkened windows! Where does he live, West Kensington or Chelsea? My daughter went to a pretty expensive prep school followed by an even more expensive private grammar school. The number of SUVs with darkened windows could be counted on the fingers of one hand! I can just imagine all the thousands of state schools from Bradford to Billericay, from Merthyr Tydfil to Manchester - hundreds of mums in SUVs with blackened windows! My God, I'd never realised how rich every family is in the UK. Their second cars are SUVs with tinted windows. Perhaps he's thinking of drug dealers - or maybe he's on drugs himself! And then we get the 'Bringing the law into disrepute' claptrap. Why should it? Has the mobile phone legislation brought the law into disrepute? Here's the thing chaps, most sensible people agree that it's a jolly good idea not to transport children in a car filled with smoke. Most sensible people think that it's a good idea to wear a seat belt or refrain from talking on a phone when driving. Sensible people will support this law and there's no evidence to the contrary. But here's the thing that they can't grasp. Enforcement is secondary. What matters is that if this is enshrined in law the majority of us will obey it! All over Britain lots of silly people who hadn't really thought about it will decide that they'd better not break the law just in case they are spotted. I used to risk the odd call on my mobile - not any more. And as I said, in many cities the police enforce the law by having splurges. Splurges with number plate recognition cameras to catch motor-tax and insurance dodgers, splurges to spot people using mobiles where they set up cameras on main roads full of slow-moving rush hour traffic. And to reinforce this law they'll probably do the same during the hours of the school run when it's most likely that there'll be parents transporting children. Except of course in Teflon2's neighbourhood where every mum drives an SUV with blackened windows! But the stupidest, silliest arguments are from the conspiracy nutters. They can't deport criminals so this is all about introducing a crime that the police can monitor! This isn't about protecting children, it's just a huge cover up to hide some other bad news that the government doesn't want us to notice! Give me strength! These people were using these same tired old arguments when every other law that they don't like was introduced! Because of government legislation drink drivers are now despised by the rest of us. People who talk on phones are now seen as idiots by the rest of us and in a year or two parents who smoke with children in their cars will also be seen as idiots and very few of them will do it. But what is really worrying is that we have here a measure to protect children and to educate their parents (and many parents are not very bright I'm afraid) and we get nothing but negativity from a few members of this forum. How can anyone be against sensible legislation? But of course the police may not be able to catch some burglars or other criminals so this must mean that we should never introduce any new laws - or why bother enforcing any others for that matter? Ludicrous! Finally, do any of our resident geniuses know how many thousands of people have been caught talking on phones when driving in the last couple of years? I wonder how our inefficient plod who can't catch burglars managed that eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capcloser Posted February 3, 2014 Author Share Posted February 3, 2014 HA- I'm finding the cognitive powers of some of my fellow citizens to be quite scary-----is that everyone who doesnt agree with you all time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 capcloser - 2014-02-03 3:26 PM HA- I'm finding the cognitive powers of some of my fellow citizens to be quite scary-----is that everyone who doesnt agree with you all time? Not at all. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion. What worries me is the level of debate and the ludicrous and silly arguments being put forward by people who clearly haven't really given it any thought but have just jumped in with silly prejudices. I have explained it all many times, as have others. Still, I'm pleased that you, after being against the law initially are now, by your own admission, for it and you also claim that your mind has been changed by me and others putting forward logical argument. I do worry though about some of you, especially someone who can't work out that the initials of Had Enough are actually HE and not HA. I have to say though, that judging by the level of your debating powers and by your inability to really think things through easily, you'll fit in well with some of the Chatterbox regulars. You'll be very happy on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capcloser Posted February 3, 2014 Author Share Posted February 3, 2014 Sorry about the HA my mistake its this small android keyboard and i am a bit thick,yes you did change my mind which is what debate is about,i just think you are a little abrasive in how you put what would otherwise be good points across,but who am i to tell you how to write,i'm a poorly educated factory worker and your a successful and intelligent businessman lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 capcloser - 2014-02-03 4:25 PM Sorry about the HA my mistake its this small android keyboard and i am a bit thick,yes you did change my mind which is what debate is about,i just think you are a little abrasive in how you put what would otherwise be good points across,but who am i to tell you how to write,i'm a poorly educated factory worker and your a successful and intelligent businessman lol Call me thick Cap *-)............................but I do believe your extracting the urine from the forums font of intellectual intelligence 8-)............... Gawd I hope they don't ban Frank baiting next :-S................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 pelmetman - 2014-02-03 4:56 PM Call me thick Cap *-)...... . How come Capcloser gets an invite?...Why can't he just join the queue, like the rest of us?...... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Is it just me that finds one posters on here absolutely hilarious? Because it does underline that a sharp tongue is no indication of a keen mind. (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Clive's lost the argument so it's the usual tactic! (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 If you bothered to read my posts through the red mists of anger that afflict you Frank - you would see that i actually agree with this Law - I stated that it was sensible - but the point I made was that with another entirely sensible recently introduced law re centre lane hogging and tailgating being ignored by the Police - I fail to see that this law re smoking in a car will be able to be enforced. Debate is rarely about "winning" as you seem to think Frank - It is not about losers and winners - but I except that this may be what passes for sensible conversation in your limited experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Had Enough - 2014-02-03 6:24 PM Clive's lost the argument so it's the usual tactic! (lol) (lol) It strikes me,,,,, Frank......that your humour is still a work in progress *-)......................I put it down to your shallow life as a person of importance for far to many years :-S...................hopefully another ;-)( seeing as you were BANNED once) spell on here will make you almost human 8-) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 pepe63 - 2014-02-03 5:21 PM pelmetman - 2014-02-03 4:56 PM Call me thick Cap *-)...... . How come Capcloser gets an invite?...Why can't he just join the queue, like the rest of us?...... ;-) I'm thinking of coming out 8-)........... Don't tell the wife ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 HELP! Will someone please explain to Clive how easily this law can be enforced. I've tried, Pepe's tried, but he's having his usual problem following things. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I would say it is as easy as enforcing the law re centre lane hogging and tailgating. Your argument is a Strawman Frank Of course any law CAN be enforced - that is hardly the point now is it *-) The point is - WILL it be enforced now that we have reduced police numbers such that other - dare I say - even MORE sensible laws are NOT being enforced! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teflon2 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 This is for HE. Yes I did suggest you engage your brain before posting which was very rude of me and out of character but you do have an abrasive attitude on posting. Please read your rather long submission as to the acceptable to you of drivers of SUVs with darkened windows being able to avoid being stopped but the much poorer parents in normal cars being more vulnerable to being caught out, This seems to me to show you accept the hoi polloi getting away with avoiding the law as long as the plebs get caught. As to the effectiveness of the mobile phone law try getting out of your car and actually looking to see how many drivers ignore it, when I walk my dogs it seems as though about 1 in 10 are using hand helds, the point being there are insufficient police to enforce these laws. As a motorcyclist I would prefer that all drivers kept both hands on the steering wheel as much as possible and didn't throw their rubbish and cigarette end out of their windows and sun roofs but they don't and that also is an offence.( I can't believe I just wrote that much I must be bored )John 8-) 8-) just for the record I don't smoke can't see the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 CliveH - 2014-02-03 7:12 PM I would say it is as easy as enforcing the law re centre lane hogging and tailgating. Your argument is a Strawman Frank Of course any law CAN be enforced - that is hardly the point now is it *-) The point is - WILL it be enforced now that we have reduced police numbers such that other - dare I say - even MORE sensible laws are NOT being enforced! And there's us thinking that at least twice you've said it's unenforceable! Nice bit of backpedaling now that we've shown you the vapidity of your rather silly stance on this. You're really amazing Clive! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Had Enough - 2014-02-03 7:08 PM HELP! Will someone please explain to Clive how easily this law can be enforced. I've tried, Pepe's tried, but he's having his usual problem following things. Thank you. Sorry its time for a bit of Frank and Sense *-)..................................I admit a bit late for those whose suffer from religion :-| ....................... I dare say it wont sink in for a while given your advanced age compared to mine.................but should I reach 70+................ I'd hate to be like you :-| .................you've treated people like sh*te for so long you don't have a clue when it comes to mixing with people below your station........or should that be below your credit rating *-) ........ . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Here is the report that appeared on our local TV https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=582121368545124 I say again - if the Police are not "on the ground" to enforce THIS entirely sensible law that will stop accidents and save lives!!!!!!! - How the hell does anyone think the Police will be hanging round on street corners waiting to pounce on someone stupid enough to light up with the kids in the car! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 teflon2 - 2014-02-03 7:18 PM This is for HE. Yes I did suggest you engage your brain before posting which was very rude of me and out of character but you do have an abrasive attitude on posting. Please read your rather long submission as to the acceptable to you of drivers of SUVs with darkened windows being able to avoid being stopped but the much poorer parents in normal cars being more vulnerable to being caught out, This seems to me to show you accept the hoi polloi getting away with avoiding the law as long as the plebs get caught. As to the effectiveness of the mobile phone law try getting out of your car and actually looking to see how many drivers ignore it, when I walk my dogs it seems as though about 1 in 10 are using hand helds, the point being there are insufficient police to enforce these laws. As a motorcyclist I would prefer that all drivers kept both hands on the steering wheel as much as possible and didn't throw their rubbish and cigarette end out of their windows and sun roofs but they don't and that also is an offence.( I can't believe I just wrote that much I must be bored )John 8-) 8-) just for the record I don't smoke can't see the point. What are you on about? Where have I ever suggested that anyone should be treated differently. And you need to look up hoi polloi! Your argument about SUVs was nonsense by the way! Do you live in Chelsea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I think he lives in the real world Frank. One where people realise that cars with rear window tints are available nationwide *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Had Enough - 2014-02-03 7:29 PM teflon2 - 2014-02-03 7:18 PM This is for HE. Yes I did suggest you engage your brain before posting which was very rude of me and out of character but you do have an abrasive attitude on posting. Please read your rather long submission as to the acceptable to you of drivers of SUVs with darkened windows being able to avoid being stopped but the much poorer parents in normal cars being more vulnerable to being caught out, This seems to me to show you accept the hoi polloi getting away with avoiding the law as long as the plebs get caught. As to the effectiveness of the mobile phone law try getting out of your car and actually looking to see how many drivers ignore it, when I walk my dogs it seems as though about 1 in 10 are using hand helds, the point being there are insufficient police to enforce these laws. As a motorcyclist I would prefer that all drivers kept both hands on the steering wheel as much as possible and didn't throw their rubbish and cigarette end out of their windows and sun roofs but they don't and that also is an offence.( I can't believe I just wrote that much I must be bored )John 8-) 8-) just for the record I don't smoke can't see the point. What are you on about? Where have I ever suggested that anyone should be treated differently. And you need to look up hoi polloi! Your argument about SUVs was nonsense by the way! Do you live in Chelsea? Its a bit early but I know Fwank doesn't like to play with me anymore ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 CliveH - 2014-02-03 7:28 PM Here is the report that appeared on our local TV https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=582121368545124 I say again - if the Police are not "on the ground" to enforce THIS entirely sensible law that will stop accidents and save lives!!!!!!! - How the hell does anyone think the Police will be hanging round on street corners waiting to pounce on someone stupid enough to light up with the kids in the car! You are slow Clive. I've explained it to you at least twice. Here's a clue, look up how many people have been prosecuted for talking on mobiles. I wonder how those bobbies standing on street corners managed that? I have to go now but be a good little chap and read what Pepe and I have already told you. I'll test you on it tomorrow. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Oh dear! I take it you didn't watch (or possibly understand) the subject matter and content of the BBC report? Par for the course tho' Sadly With Mobile phones - the police have he power to prove someone was on the phone via the phone bill records. What are they going to take to court if they spot someone having a fag? The stubbed out butt end when they finally chase them with squad cars, helicopter spy in the sky and all the cameras on the roadside? Oh yeah - I can see that working! (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teflon2 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Had Enough - 2014-02-03 7:29 PM teflon2 - 2014-02-03 7:18 PM This is for HE. Yes I did suggest you engage your brain before posting which was very rude of me and out of character but you do have an abrasive attitude on posting. Please read your rather long submission as to the acceptable to you of drivers of SUVs with darkened windows being able to avoid being stopped but the much poorer parents in normal cars being more vulnerable to being caught out, This seems to me to show you accept the hoi polloi getting away with avoiding the law as long as the plebs get caught. As to the effectiveness of the mobile phone law try getting out of your car and actually looking to see how many drivers ignore it, when I walk my dogs it seems as though about 1 in 10 are using hand helds, the point being there are insufficient police to enforce these laws. As a motorcyclist I would prefer that all drivers kept both hands on the steering wheel as much as possible and didn't throw their rubbish and cigarette end out of their windows and sun roofs but they don't and that also is an offence.( I can't believe I just wrote that much I must be bored )John 8-) 8-) just for the record I don't smoke can't see the point. What are you on about? Where have I ever suggested that anyone should be treated differently. And you need to look up hoi polloi! Your argument about SUVs was nonsense by the way! Do you live in Chelsea? NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capcloser Posted February 3, 2014 Author Share Posted February 3, 2014 So it seems we generally agree it was a good idea but not that practical,i dont see the law themselves being that keen on enforcing it,although i suppose in inner cities it could be an excuse for stop and search which was also in the headlines recently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 capcloser - 2014-02-03 7:59 PM So it seems we generally agree it was a good idea but not that practical,i dont see the law themselves being that keen on enforcing it,although i suppose in inner cities it could be an excuse for stop and search which was also in the headlines recently But don't forget Cap ;-)................when it comes to coppering now days points make prizes :D ..............so thinking ahead as any public servant would >:-)................... Where would any sensible man in blue stand? .....................outside a drugs den or a school ;-)........... Although I admit at the moment its a close call >:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.