antony1969 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Word on the street round here is that crack teams of under cover cops are guna be taken off car parking offences to catch these horrible criminals , there's no hiding place for rotten to the core criminals any more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 pelmetman - 2014-02-03 8:29 PM 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 >:-) Depends on the points system surely???? If we award 10 points for a "smoker in front of the kids" and, say, 1 point for drug pushers, then this new law could be a SUCCESS! Wow! how could I have been so blind! It all makes sense now - I take it all back.......... It clearly is not about wrong and right - it is about HOW wrong or right some people perceive a crime to be! Ah! yes - the Politicians and spin merchants have been making that distinction for years. *-) *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Written having unfortunately allowed myself to descend to the lowest depths of sarcasm, brought on by reading a post from HIM(HE): .......Now listen up all you 'plebs'.. :-D ........I have just read HE who must be bowed down to's post where HE unequivocally tell us his daughter went to 'expensive' skools which shows, by illustration, there is at least one 'expensively' edjumicated person as well as a bastion of British industry in the family. An establishment of greatness indeed..............yawn!!! Certainly not one of complete pleasantness that's for sure. Therefore 'plebs'......... you should all bow to the greater force that is the HE word delivered from on high and be told what is and isn't right or correct. The great HE has spoken!!! I reflect on the level of unpleasantness, sarcasm and general unpleasantness emanating from HIS keyboard and wonder if his highly expensively edjumikated daughter realises just how unpleasant her father can be? I know my daughter would be ashamed of me if I wrote in the same vein as the high and mighty, sarcastic and rude HE does. To answer HIS question.....reposted complete with sarcastic, unnecessarily abusive content: Quote: 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? Unquote. The answer is: 2011........7390 2012 Jan-May (end)2746 Hardly a shattering supportive set of numbers really considering that at the end of 2012 there were 34.5 million vehicles licensed for use on the roads in Great Britain, of which 28.7 million (83 per cent) were cars. With approximately 17000 Police cars in the UK that gives each one (assuming they are all out on the roads, which they are not)approximately 2030 vehicles to 'police'. Looks like a pretty poor 'gotcha' rate to me considering the number of phone users I see on my travels. I see more of them than I do police cars. Now 'plebs' be good underlings and submit to the will of HE........ Like hell I will.......... :-D HE is like an itch I must learn not to scratch...........although prickly heat would be more welcome than the irritation that is HE. Oh and as far as the smoking/kids in cars law is concerned.............in principle a good idea but, and I emphasise BUT........we have an insufficient police presence to make it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I hope Frank doesn't get banned again soon as he does wonders for my thought processes ;-).......... HE's almost got both my brain cell's working..................I didn't know I had two 8-)...........I blame it on the pigs *-)................I knew the swine was smarter than me :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think Roger's post sums the conundrum up really well. Yes we all know that using a mobile phone is against the law - but as Roger says - I certainly see more drivers USING mobile phones than I do Police cars or Police "on the beat". The detection rate for mobile phone use when driving is woeful. The figures speak for themselves. And this with the ability of the Police to PROVE someone was on the phone whilst driving by simply referring to Phone records! The burden of proof for smoking in front of children in a car is infinitely more complex. But is it unenforceable? No of course not given enough resource. But the woeful stats for mobile phone use prosecutions and the fact that you see far far far more people using mobiles whilst driving than Police proves the point. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 CliveH - 2014-02-04 8:32 AM But the woeful stats for mobile phone use prosecutions and the fact that you see far far far more people using mobiles whilst driving than Police proves the point. :-S Mornin' Clive... To use my earlier "Toe rag" analogy again, I don't have a Policeman at the bottom of my garden but I still want the law that says it's illegal to break into my shed..... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek pringle Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Had Enough - 2014-02-03 3:09 PM 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? Hi, The only problem as I see it is rhat people do not use mobile phones as much now, and most people never I hope, whilst driving is sadly because of the level of fine or punishment, not because they see it as a responsible thing not to do, or "risk" the odd call. cheers derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 pepe63 - 2014-02-04 9:03 AM CliveH - 2014-02-04 8:32 AM But the woeful stats for mobile phone use prosecutions and the fact that you see far far far more people using mobiles whilst driving than Police proves the point. :-S Mornin' Clive... To use my earlier "Toe rag" analogy again, I don't have a Policeman at the bottom of my garden but I still want the law that says it's illegal to break into my shed..... ;-) I think you are right pepe - the new law is all about changing peoples' behaviour. Would it be enforceable ?? Of course it would - especially if the policeman has a camera. Would it be enforced ?? - Occasionally. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 pepe63 - 2014-02-04 9:03 AM CliveH - 2014-02-04 8:32 AM But the woeful stats for mobile phone use prosecutions and the fact that you see far far far more people using mobiles whilst driving than Police proves the point. :-S Mornin' Clive... To use my earlier "Toe rag" analogy again, I don't have a Policeman at the bottom of my garden but I still want the law that says it's illegal to break into my shed..... ;-) Strawman argument again Pepe - Of course if someone breaks the law then they should be caught and punished - the point here is NOT about how unlawful any particular act is - but how enforcible it is. If someone breaks into your shed and steals something then there is evidence and that person can be prosecuted for theft. But if they broke into your shed and stole nothing Would the law prosecute? I doubt it. Imagine the phone call - Pepe dials 999 - "Quick - someone has broken into my shed!" Police "Have they taken anything?" Pepe " Well no, they haven't" Police "So what do you want us to do about it?" Pepe "Well I did see him sitting in his car smoking with children in the back" Police " RIGHT! - Three squad cars, a dog team and we have scrambled the helicopter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 CliveH - 2014-02-04 9:51 AM - the point here is NOT about how unlawful any particular act is - but how enforceable it is. Of cause the degree of "enforceability" is important...But I dare say that many laws would have a "low enforceability" rate, that doesn't necessarily make them a bad law... Their very existence has probably deterred people from breaking them... You've kept saying about how many mobile phones you still see being used...but surely you can't dispute that the number would be higher if it wasn't against the law... :-S Open questions to all: Do you still use your phone whilst driving?.. Did you start routinely using your seatbelt, when it became compulsory? Do you drink alcohol and still drive home?... If you've answered No - Yes - No, then the chances are, even though you may not have been "caught" by the law, YOU have been influenced by one... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Derek I am taking a punt that it was you who wrote this relative to using a mobile phone whilst in control of a vehicle : and most people never I hope, whilst driving is sadly because of the level of fine or punishment, Whilst it is probably true you might like to read the following with particular attention to the first paragraph.: A policewoman who repeatedly denied that she was talking on her mobile phone to her lesbian lover when she caused a fatal crash has escaped prosecution.Despite a police investigator saying that Collette Carpenter ‘very likely contributed’ to the accident, the Crown Prosecution Service said there was no evidence she had committed an offence because the phone was on her lap and set to loudspeaker.Miss Carpenter, 23, a special constable who has handed out at least six fixed penalty fines to motorists for using their mobile phones while driving, was talking to girlfriend Rosemary Bonny when she drove into the path of David Bartholomew’s motorcycle, an inquest heard.The father of two died hours later of horrific head injuries and multiple fractures.When interviewed by police, Miss Carpenter repeatedly lied and said she was not on her phone. She later said she briefly took a call before admitting she had been on the phone for the entire journey, but had had it on the loudspeaker in her lap.Experienced motorcyclist Mr Bartholomew, 54, of Bere Regis, Dorset, was riding his Honda CBF1000 east along the A31 at 7.20am on March 20 last year when Miss Carpenter – who was off-duty – pulled out of a side road in Ferndown to go west in her Peugeot 206.Witnesses said no one had been breaking the speed limit, but Miss Carpenter, of Colehill, Wimborne, said she had not seen Mr Bartholomew until the collision. Miss Carpenter, who has been with Dorset Police for three years, has completed a police driving course.PC John Hayward, Dorset Police’s accident investigator, told Bournemouth Coroner’s Court: ‘The use of her mobile phone can only have been a distraction and has very likely contributed to her not seeing the motorcyclist.' However, coroner Mr Sheriff Payne described her account of the incoming call as ‘total rubbish’ and said: ‘She came up with misleading accounts of what happened.’ He recorded a verdict of accidental death at the inquest on Monday. A CPS spokeswoman said it did not have enough evidence to charge Miss Carpenter with causing death by careless or dangerous driving. She said: ‘There was no evidence to support that Miss Carpenter was holding her phone at the time of the collision.’ Now please read this: It has been illegal to use a handheld mobile phone or similar device while driving since December 2003.This includes motorists stopped at traffic lights, stuck in traffic or even parked with the engine running. It is, however, legal to use hands-free devices such as headphones or a mobile phone ‘cradle’. Pushing buttons on a phone while it is in the cradle is not an offence if the driver is not holding the phone. The foregoing regarding using a handheld in a cradle etc is obviously what this irresponsible, lying, should know better PCSO was relying on to get off the charges laid against her for having caused the death of someone. If the likes of her, who should be setting an example, can act with such disregard for the law I see no reason to trust that the implementation of a new law will, in reality have much of an effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capcloser Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 As both a driver a.d motorbike rider i am horrified she was not charged,what were the cps doing,of course there was enough evidence to prosecute,and let a jury decide,and as a policewoman she knew she was in the wrong,doesnt matter if the phone was on her lap,she was distracted thats all there is to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Agreed this is an appalling abuse of privilege in my view. Not surprising tho, based upon my experience and that of one of my clients in particular. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 pepe63 - 2014-02-04 10:25 AM CliveH - 2014-02-04 9:51 AM - the point here is NOT about how unlawful any particular act is - but how enforceable it is. Of cause the degree of "enforceability" is important...But I dare say that many laws would have a "low enforceability" rate, that doesn't necessarily make them a bad law... Their very existence has probably deterred people from breaking them... You've kept saying about how many mobile phones you still see being used...but surely you can't dispute that the number would be higher if it wasn't against the law... :-S Open questions to all: Do you still use your phone whilst driving?.. Did you start routinely using your seatbelt, when it became compulsory? Do you drink alcohol and still drive home?... If you've answered No - Yes - No, then the chances are, even though you may not have been "caught" by the law, YOU have been influenced by one... ;-) You're wasting your time with Clive. We've seen it so many times in the past. He's dug himself into a hole and will now use whatever silly arguments he can to try to defend the indefensible. His ludicrous example of not being able to prosecute a smoker because the smoker will simply stub it out speaks volumes for his reasoning abilities! I'm on my way back from Morocco. Half the population seemed to be driving and texting or phoning at the same time. Our taxi driver to Marrakech spent the entire journey on the phone and let go of the steering wheel several times to change gear. This used to happen in Britain, but not any more. But you can just imagine the level of intelligence in the Ministry of Clive can't you? Minister Clive:"I say civil servant chappie, there are lots of people out there not using seat belts whilst driving. This is very dangerous so can we make it illegal?" Civil servant: "Well, it may be a bit difficult to enforce Minister." Minister Clive: "Oh, well we'd better not bother then." In fact why do we have any laws that are difficult to enforce? Let's scrap the lot and save loads of money! Burglary, that's got a low detection rate. let's make it legal! That is the level that we're getting from a few people on here. it's quite scary really! But I'll try to explain it again and this time I'll make it as simple as possible: Britain's are a law-abiding bunch on the whole. If we decide to implement a law to stop the silly practice of using phones when driving then the vast majority of the population will immediately stop the practice! Whatever the risk they don't want to take it and get a hefty fine and points on their licence. So the job is almost done without even mentioning enforcement. But of course a small percentage will break the law. And that's why the police mount the equivalent of mobile speed camera checks but to get photographic evidence of people using their phone. That's why in 2012 there were several thousand prosecutions. And for every prosecution there are many more who read about it or know the bloke who was prosecuted. So many, many more people are reminded of the consequences. Since the law was introduced the number of people breaking it has diminished year on year and will continue to do so, just as not wearing seat belts is a rare occurrence, so will talking on phone be as well. More and more people read of the consequences and take notice. One particularly silly man has scoffed at the fact that only about ten thousand people have been prosecuted! My God! That's ten thousand people who are no longer going to be doing one of the most dangerous things that you can do when driving! Talk to a parent or wife or husband who's lost someone in an accident caused by an idiot on his phone and ask them if they think the law is an ass! Now, this next bit is specially for Clive who can't work out how easy it is to prosecute someone who is smoking in a car full of kids. A policeman witnesses it and tells the driver he intends to book him. Clive thinks that if the man stubs out his fag the copper is going to say: "Oh, you've got me there guv, be on your way and don't do it again". Is he deranged? Doesn't he know how these things work? If a policeman sees you without a seat belt and after he's stopped you, you buckle up do you think that you'll get away with it? Magistrates will take a police officer's word every time if it's down to he said, I said! But the fact is that most will be captured on cameras. Either from police cars which film from the back and the front or from speed-trap type operations designed to remind people that this law exists. This is exactly what happened with phones in cars. Some people thought they could flout the law so the police have a purge and eventually we all get the message. I've read some idiot postings on here but this thread has hit the bottom. The main theme seems to be: Well, yes, I can see some sense in this proposal as it will save lives in that fewer drivers will be fiddling with fags and risking killing everyone, and it will stop some children from inhaling lots of secondhand smoke. But it may a difficult to enforce, so we'd better not bother! God give me strength! Apart from which you idiots, it won't be difficult to enforce! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 malc d - 2014-02-04 9:28 AM pepe63 - 2014-02-04 9:03 AM CliveH - 2014-02-04 8:32 AM But the woeful stats for mobile phone use prosecutions and the fact that you see far far far more people using mobiles whilst driving than Police proves the point. :-S Mornin' Clive... To use my earlier "Toe rag" analogy again, I don't have a Policeman at the bottom of my garden but I still want the law that says it's illegal to break into my shed..... ;-) I think you are right pepe - the new law is all about changing peoples' behaviour. Would it be enforceable ?? Of course it would - especially if the policeman has a camera. Would it be enforced ?? - Occasionally. ;-) Congratulations on being one of a small number of people on here who is able to think beyond a reactionary 'can't be enforced so why bother' mindset of the most numbing stupidity, and being able to work out that bringing in such laws eventually changes people's behaviour! We heard it all before with seat belts, having a few drinks when driving and latterly using phones. Some people are incapable of learning I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capcloser Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 I agree that from the enforcement angle the threat of being caught will deter the majority of people,and i say again you raise some good points in your post which i for one have taken on board,but why do you have to be so bloody sarcastic and rude with your posts,all you do is antagonise some people who may actually agree with you! As someone else said being clever doesnt make someone nice,your Blackadder to my Baldrick lol (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 capcloser - 2014-02-04 3:26 PM ................,but why do you have to be so bloody sarcastic and rude with your posts,all you do is antagonise some people who may actually agree with you! (lol) What we need is a law against sarcastic postings. Then he wouldn't do it any more. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 capcloser - 2014-02-04 3:26 PM I agree that from the enforcement angle the threat of being caught will deter the majority of people,and i say again you raise some good points in your post which i for one have taken on board,but why do you have to be so bloody sarcastic and rude with your posts,all you do is antagonise some people who may actually agree with you! As someone else said being clever doesnt make someone nice,your Blackadder to my Baldrick lol (lol) Because I'm sick of idiots who can't think beyond their first incredibly stupid gut reaction and then try to defend it with even more sarcastic nonsense. Have you read CliveH and RogerC? Seriously though, you are one of the few sensible ones on here. You too came to the table with such a gut reaction but during the debate you've read the evidence, seen the light and changed your mind and that is something I admire. And there's also the great pleasure I derive from seeing RogerC getting even more apoplectic about me. He already wakes up every morning thinking that the entire country is a morass of corruption and that every single public servant, MP or councillor is a thief and a liar, and that everything he doesn't like (most things really) is a huge conspiracy against us all! Mind you, he hasn't mentioned anyone getting their nose in the trough for a couple of days so maybe his doctor's giving him something! He's very sad and I hope that giving him something to have a little pop at now and again may stop him from feeling so miserable and unhappy about the state of Britain. ;-) I think of it as care in the community really! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 malc d - 2014-02-04 3:33 PM capcloser - 2014-02-04 3:26 PM ................,but why do you have to be so bloody sarcastic and rude with your posts,all you do is antagonise some people who may actually agree with you! (lol) What we need is a law against sarcastic postings. Then he wouldn't do it any more. ;-) Don't be bloody silly! It couldn't possibly be enforced! And then the law would look to be an ass and there'd be rioting in the streets and the whole population would lose faith in our legal system and civilisation would collapse. I don't know, where do you get these daft ideas from eh? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 For once I agree with Nick Clegg "Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has said a plan to introduce a new law banning people from smoking in cars with children "is not going to work". The Lib Dem Leader made it clear he was opposed to the Labour proposal, arguing that such a new offence would not be enforceable in practice. He said while it was "deeply irresponsible" and "a stupid thing to do to smoke with kids in the back of the car", it was wrong to try to "sub-contract" responsible parenting to the state. Mr Clegg said it was "basic common sense" that cigarette smoke is bad for children - and suggested it would be comparable to trying to legislate to stop children watching too much TV or drinking too many fizzy drinks. Speaking on his weekly LBC radio phone-in on Thursday, he said: "I don't personally think that it is going to work to pass a law." "Of course it is a stupid thing to do to smoke in a car with kids in the back, of course it is - in the same way you shouldn't give your children a can of Coke before going to bed or only feed them on crisps breakfast, lunch and supper. I'm like anybody else, I've got small children, I'm dismayed that anyone might do that." ........................ Quiet an occasion this - we have a politician smarter and more erudite than Franky! Have we seen this before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Had Enough - 2014-02-04 3:12 PM pepe63 - 2014-02-04 10:25 AM CliveH - 2014-02-04 9:51 AM - the point here is NOT about how unlawful any particular act is - but how enforceable it is. Of cause the degree of "enforceability" is important...But I dare say that many laws would have a "low enforceability" rate, that doesn't necessarily make them a bad law... Their very existence has probably deterred people from breaking them... You've kept saying about how many mobile phones you still see being used...but surely you can't dispute that the number would be higher if it wasn't against the law... :-S Open questions to all: Do you still use your phone whilst driving?.. Did you start routinely using your seatbelt, when it became compulsory? Do you drink alcohol and still drive home?... If you've answered No - Yes - No, then the chances are, even though you may not have been "caught" by the law, YOU have been influenced by one... ;-) You're wasting your time with Clive. We've seen it so many times in the past. He's dug himself into a hole and will now use whatever silly arguments he can to try to defend the indefensible. His ludicrous example of not being able to prosecute a smoker because the smoker will simply stub it out speaks volumes for his reasoning abilities! I'm on my way back from Morocco. Half the population seemed to be driving and texting or phoning at the same time. Our taxi driver to Marrakech spent the entire journey on the phone and let go of the steering wheel several times to change gear. This used to happen in Britain, but not any more. But you can just imagine the level of intelligence in the Ministry of Clive can't you? Minister Clive:"I say civil servant chappie, there are lots of people out there not using seat belts whilst driving. This is very dangerous so can we make it illegal?" Civil servant: "Well, it may be a bit difficult to enforce Minister." Minister Clive: "Oh, well we'd better not bother then." In fact why do we have any laws that are difficult to enforce? Let's scrap the lot and save loads of money! Burglary, that's got a low detection rate. let's make it legal! That is the level that we're getting from a few people on here. it's quite scary really! But I'll try to explain it again and this time I'll make it as simple as possible: Britain's are a law-abiding bunch on the whole. If we decide to implement a law to stop the silly practice of using phones when driving then the vast majority of the population will immediately stop the practice! Whatever the risk they don't want to take it and get a hefty fine and points on their licence. So the job is almost done without even mentioning enforcement. But of course a small percentage will break the law. And that's why the police mount the equivalent of mobile speed camera checks but to get photographic evidence of people using their phone. That's why in 2012 there were several thousand prosecutions. And for every prosecution there are many more who read about it or know the bloke who was prosecuted. So many, many more people are reminded of the consequences. Since the law was introduced the number of people breaking it has diminished year on year and will continue to do so, just as not wearing seat belts is a rare occurrence, so will talking on phone be as well. More and more people read of the consequences and take notice. One particularly silly man has scoffed at the fact that only about ten thousand people have been prosecuted! My God! That's ten thousand people who are no longer going to be doing one of the most dangerous things that you can do when driving! Talk to a parent or wife or husband who's lost someone in an accident caused by an idiot on his phone and ask them if they think the law is an ass! Now, this next bit is specially for Clive who can't work out how easy it is to prosecute someone who is smoking in a car full of kids. A policeman witnesses it and tells the driver he intends to book him. Clive thinks that if the man stubs out his fag the copper is going to say: "Oh, you've got me there guv, be on your way and don't do it again". Is he deranged? Doesn't he know how these things work? If a policeman sees you without a seat belt and after he's stopped you, you buckle up do you think that you'll get away with it? Magistrates will take a police officer's word every time if it's down to he said, I said! But the fact is that most will be captured on cameras. Either from police cars which film from the back and the front or from speed-trap type operations designed to remind people that this law exists. This is exactly what happened with phones in cars. Some people thought they could flout the law so the police have a purge and eventually we all get the message. I've read some idiot postings on here but this thread has hit the bottom. The main theme seems to be: Well, yes, I can see some sense in this proposal as it will save lives in that fewer drivers will be fiddling with fags and risking killing everyone, and it will stop some children from inhaling lots of secondhand smoke. But it may a difficult to enforce, so we'd better not bother! God give me strength! Apart from which you idiots, it won't be difficult to enforce! Wow Frank! - A Strawman argument AND a couple of Ad Homs! (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 This law is "gesture politics" - and is typical of the useless laws thought up by useless people and supported by people who feel that "something must be done!" . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10613282/Smoking-in-cars-two-Tory-cabinet-ministers-plan-to-vote-against-ban.html It matters not a jot that what is proposed is about as useful as a fart in a spacesuit - as long as those that want a gesture get a gesture. The one I would suggest is a hand with the forefinger and thumb together waved up and down. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 "The amendment to the Children and Families Bill was approved by the House of Lords last week, and now faces a Commons vote. Epping Forest MP Eleanor Laing (Cons) has strong personal views on the issue. Mrs Laing said: “I think that people who smoke in cars when there are children in their cars are selfish. and they shouldn’t do it. Smoking harms people and it particularly harms children when they are in the enclosed car. “But on the other hand, not everything that is wrong in our society can be put right by passing a law and if laws are made they must be enforceable.” Charles Walker MP (Cons, Broxbourne) agreed, saying: “As a non-smoker myself, I don’t think it is desirable for people to smoke in cars with their children present. “However, I do not support a ban as it would be impossible to police and would otherwise criminalise good people and good parents. “Criminalising parents for the act of smoking is not something I find acceptable.” Mark Prisk MP (Cons, Hertford and Stortford) was of the same opinion. He said: “I don’t support this idea for two reasons. “First, it’s impractical and will be very difficult to enforce. “Second, and more fundamentally, I don’t believe this is a role for Government, nor a job for the police. Parents are adults and should be treated as such. “So whilst I think smoking is harmful, I think this the wrong way to tackle the problem.” ............................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 "Now Vince Cable joins Cabinet opposition to ban on smoking in cars with children and Duncan Smith fears it is unenforceable Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is to back a ban, after previously warning it was not the state's tole to dictate what people do in private Nick Clegg, the cigarette-smoking Deputy Prime Minister:‘A family speeding along the M4 and mum or dad are smoking, how on earth are you going to properly enforce that?’ Ken Clarke, the cigar-smoking minister without portfolio: ‘I don't think our traffic police are going to be concentrating enormous efforts on racing up and down the motorway peering into cars, trying to see whether there's a child in.' Communities Secretary Eric Pickles: ‘My initial intention is to vote against it. We should make things criminal if we feel that they are enforceable.’ Public Health Minister Jane Ellison: ‘We are not persuaded that legislation is the right way forward on that matter.’ (November 2013) Chief Whip Sir George Young: ‘I see some difficulties in trying to enforce a ban on all smoking in cars.’ (November 2011, when Commons leader) Prime Minister David Cameron: ‘Whatever people have done in the past, the facts show that they really should change their behaviour. I am not sure whether it is possible to legislate in that area - we need a change in attitudes.’ (March 2011) Defence Minister Anna Soubry, an ex-smoker: ‘I would ban smoking in cars where children are present. I would see it as a child welfare issue. I think it is something we should at least consider as government.’ (February 2013, when public health minister) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 That's an impressive list of personnel Clive.. But I wouldn't mind betting that you've rubbished most of them at one stage or other...So it's odd how their opinions are so valid to you now all of a sudden... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.