NationStates Jolt Archive

From one of the less respected news sources: http://www.eccleshill.net/silly_news

A man in Harrogate, North Yorkshire has been prosecuted by police for farting while driving. Mr Brian Turpitz has been fined £40 and given 3 penalty points for farting while driving on the A61 near Harrogate. Brian, 42 says "I was driving along at around 30 mph, I had just had dinner which included a large amount of cabbage. Naturally, I let one go, the next thing the police helicopter was overhead and police sirens all over the place. An officer gave me a ticket for driving without due care and attention due to the fact I'd farted whilst driving. That guff cost me forty quid and three points. I still don't know how they caught me, but I don't consider I'd acted unsafely. I thought the police would have had better things to do, I recently had a bird bath stolen and it still hasn't been recovered".

Investigations by our crime staff reveal that the police are using hi-tech methods to uncover the habits of flatulent drivers. Mr Turpitz's car had secretly been fitted with electronic devices whilst he refuelled his car at a filling station in Ripon. A listening device was placed under the seat while a gas chromatographic nuclear magnetic resonance electrostatic analyser was fitted in the air vents, both devices sent signals by GPS satellite to the listening post at Menwith Hill. Police forces across the country are expected to adopt the devices in a move to clamp down on farting & driving. Inspector David Schonhorst is heading the new project, according to David "Drivers will inevitably lose concentration whilst breaking wind, drivers will end up with skid-marks both on the road and in their pants. A recent study by the Home Office indicates that 65% of drivers involved in accidents had farted within the previous 3 days. We're determined to reduce this figure in the interests of public safety".

Mr Turpitz, 39 decided to appeal against the police. On May 20th he appeared at Harrogate magistrates, the presiding magistrate Kevin Graf-Spee dismissed the charge and told the police to stop being such wankers.

Well, yes, the story is comical... But with the radical increase in monitoring devices in use by the police (CCTV everywhere, including a plan to put them on rural roads to catch motorists violating traffic laws), and plans in the US to mandate the installation of "black box recorders" in every car so that if you're stopped by the police, they can pull the data and see if you were speeding - is there a limit to the surveillance?

Does the presence of innumerable CCTV cameras really make you feel "safer"? Or are you just confident that after some chavs beat you senseless and take your wallet, that the crime will be replayed on a nationally televised show (and maybe even YouTube) while the criminals are never caught?

Would a black box recorder in your car make you feel better or safer in any way? Or would you be miffed at getting a ticket after being ratted out by your own car's computer system?

From one of the less respected news sources: http://www.eccleshill.net/silly_news



Well, yes, the story is comical... But with the radical increase in monitoring devices in use by the police (CCTV everywhere, including a plan to put them on rural roads to catch motorists violating traffic laws), and plans in the US to mandate the installation of "black box recorders" in every car so that if you're stopped by the police, they can pull the data and see if you were speeding - is there a limit to the surveillance?

Does the presence of innumerable CCTV cameras really make you feel "safer"? Or are you just confident that after some chavs beat you senseless and take your wallet, that the crime will be replayed on a nationally televised show (and maybe even YouTube) while the criminals are never caught?

Would a black box recorder in your car make you feel better or safer in any way? Or would you be miffed at getting a ticket after being ratted out by your own car's computer system?

I don't see the problem with cars having a black box. If you don't want a speeding ticket then don't speed, simple.

From one of the less respected news sources: http://www.eccleshill.net/silly_news



Well, yes, the story is comical... But with the radical increase in monitoring devices in use by the police (CCTV everywhere, including a plan to put them on rural roads to catch motorists violating traffic laws), and plans in the US to mandate the installation of "black box recorders" in every car so that if you're stopped by the police, they can pull the data and see if you were speeding - is there a limit to the surveillance?

Does the presence of innumerable CCTV cameras really make you feel "safer"? Or are you just confident that after some chavs beat you senseless and take your wallet, that the crime will be replayed on a nationally televised show (and maybe even YouTube) while the criminals are never caught?

Would a black box recorder in your car make you feel better or safer in any way? Or would you be miffed at getting a ticket after being ratted out by your own car's computer system?


I would feel safer if others had that blackbox recorder. I don't drive myself, I regard it as too risky and dangerous, and I don't want to endanger others.

Let's put it this way : if you're driving on the street, you are driving on government property. The government specifies what you can and can't do on it. And if the government decides to survey its property to ensure that all those who use it adhere to the laws, its got all rights to do so.
Do you complain about CCTV in supermarkets and department stores?

I would feel safer if others had that blackbox recorder. I don't drive myself, I regard it as too risky and dangerous, and I don't want to endanger others.

Let's put it this way : if you're driving on the street, you are driving on government property. The government specifies what you can and can't do on it. And if the government decides to survey its property to ensure that all those who use it adhere to the laws, its got all rights to do so.
Do you complain about CCTV in supermarkets and department stores?

No because supermarkets and department stores are private not public property

I would feel safer if others had that blackbox recorder. I don't drive myself, I regard it as too risky and dangerous, and I don't want to endanger others.

Let's put it this way : if you're driving on the street, you are driving on government property. The government specifies what you can and can't do on it. And if the government decides to survey its property to ensure that all those who use it adhere to the laws, its got all rights to do so.
Do you complain about CCTV in supermarkets and department stores?

Yes, I do. They don't make me feel safer, and I feel that my daily actions are being recorded for posterity and retained for who knows how long (and for what reason).

No because supermarkets and department stores are private not public property

So private persons can monitor their property to ensure safety and prevent criminal acts, but the public can't?

That black box thing sounds way out of order. I already have far too many speeding tickets.

I'll accept it, but only if the re-institute prohibtion. Fair's fair.

Yes, I do. They don't make me feel safer, and I feel that my daily actions are being recorded for posterity and retained for who knows how long (and for what reason).

What alternative detterent to shoplifting and any other crime that might take place in a supermarket would you suggest?

Yes, I do. They don't make me feel safer, and I feel that my daily actions are being recorded for posterity and retained for who knows how long (and for what reason).

If you think that CCTV are used to monitor your shopping habits, think again. Those chains that do monitor their customers for business reasons do so with personnel in the store. It's easier than with cameras.

So private persons can monitor their property to ensure safety and prevent criminal acts, but the public can't?

Thats not what I said, I was just pointing out that differences, there are many legal differences between private and public property comparing the two directly as tempting as it is has to be done carefully with the idea of private ownership

What alternative detterent to shoplifting and any other crime that might take place in a supermarket would you suggest?

Human guards.

If I commit a crime in front of a CCTV, it isn't going to stop me. A human guard can take action to actually stop a crime.

So private persons can monitor their property to ensure safety and prevent criminal acts, but the public can't?

As far as the United States is concerned, the government is bound by the constitution, whereas the private entity is not. Now there is some degree of allowance for this sort of thing, but as a matter of legality you can't just simply compare the two without noting the distinction and different governing laws.

So private persons can monitor their property to ensure safety and prevent criminal acts, but the public can't?

This is essentially correct, yes.

I would feel safer if others had that blackbox recorder. I don't drive myself, I regard it as too risky and dangerous, and I don't want to endanger others.

Let's put it this way : if you're driving on the street, you are driving on government property. The government specifies what you can and can't do on it. And if the government decides to survey its property to ensure that all those who use it adhere to the laws, its got all rights to do so.
Do you complain about CCTV in supermarkets and department stores?

cabra, very pleased with your responce. care to join my "free-ourselves-from-other-peoples-freedom" party?
i'm very much in favour of puting in my public areas as posible. i too am a non-driver and i am very frightend of people who drive. if they want to risk my life for thier leisure than i insist on the black box idea.

Human guards.

If I commit a crime in front of a CCTV, it isn't going to stop me. A human guard can take action to actually stop a crime.

then dam librals will complain about the "police state".

To expand what I said:

The technology exists today to monitor absolutely every nook and cranny of the country with webcams (webcams are that cheap). This would surely cause crime to go down and - hell damn it - you don't have any 'expectation of privacy' while out in public. It's public, after all.

So, why not do that, Cabra?

To expand what I said:

The technology exists today to monitor absolutely every nook and cranny of the country with webcams (webcams are that cheap). This would surely cause crime to go down and - hell damn it - you don't have any 'expectation of privacy' while out in public. It's public, after all.

So, why not do that, Cabra?

Yeah! Let's put a webcam in every restroom stall. That way, if you're visiting a fundie state like Texas, they can catch you whacking off (or catch you having homosexual sex).

Riiiiiiight.

It is starting to get stupid now. I have one of these Oyster cards(for public transport in London)now the thing with these is that you do get cheaper than cash fares. It is a three fold thing, you can use it as a top up card, in which case your fare is deducted from the card every time you touch it to the sensor. Or you can use it as a travel card, eithert weekly, monthly or anualy. Or a bit of both. In each case it is cheaper than paying on a fare to fare basis with cash.

As you may expect most people use it as a travel card, and I would suggest most people use it as a monthly travel card. One monthly payment, no fuss no bother. This is not the stupid bit.

The stupid bit is on the underground now where we are constaly told that we must touch in and touch out to aviod paying the full fare. Let that sink in a bit.

Touch in on the first senser at the start of your journey, and touch out at the last sensor at the end of your journey. Why? I have a monthly travel card, I don't get charged on a fare to fare basis, but one monthly payment that won't change(well for a year or so)

This touch in and touch out bollox is rubbish, why do they do it, they are in fact telling porkies(lies for the non Londoner). I'll tell you why because as you touch in your detials are taken(I.E. your name, where you live, and your DOB), and when you touch out at the other end, these same details are taken again.

Again let that sink in.

So London Transport has a record(which they keep for 3 months) of who you are, where you live, how old you are, and perhaps more scarily, your movements. Again why do they need this? Well they don't but the police can ask to search these records when they like.

Police state, shit we've all been living in one for years, and nobody has noticed.

It is starting to get stupid now. I have one of these Oyster cards(for public transport in London)now the thing with these is that you do get cheaper than cash fares. It is a three fold thing, you can use it as a top up card, in which case your fare is deducted from the card every time you touch it to the sensor. Or you can use it as a travel card, eithert weekly, monthly or anualy. Or a bit of both. In each case it is cheaper than paying on a fare to fare basis with cash.

As you may expect most people use it as a travel card, and I would suggest most people use it as a monthly travel card. One monthly payment, no fuss no bother. This is not the stupid bit.

The stupid bit is on the underground now where we are constaly told that we must touch in and touch out to aviod paying the full fare. Let that sink in a bit.

Touch in on the first senser at the start of your journey, and touch out at the last sensor at the end of your journey. Why? I have a monthly travel card, I don't get charged on a fare to fare basis, but one monthly payment that won't change(well for a year or so)

This touch in and touch out bollox is rubbish, why do they do it, they are in fact telling porkies(lies for the non Londoner). I'll tell you why because as you touch in your detials are taken(I.E. your name, where you live, and your DOB), and when you touch out at the other end, these same details are taken again.

Again let that sink in.

So London Transport has a record(which they keep for 3 months) of who you are, where you live, how old you are, and perhaps more scarily, your movements. Again why do they need this? Well they don't but the police can ask to search these records when they like.

Police state, shit we've all been living in one for years, and nobody has noticed.

I remember the Oyster card. It's quick and convenient, too.

We have the same kind of card now on the DC Metro system. But, you can pay cash for it, and don't have to have the card attached to any name or identity.

It is starting to get stupid now. I have one of these Oyster cards(for public transport in London)now the thing with these is that you do get cheaper than cash fares. It is a three fold thing, you can use it as a top up card, in which case your fare is deducted from the card every time you touch it to the sensor. Or you can use it as a travel card, eithert weekly, monthly or anualy. Or a bit of both. In each case it is cheaper than paying on a fare to fare basis with cash.

As you may expect most people use it as a travel card, and I would suggest most people use it as a monthly travel card. One monthly payment, no fuss no bother. This is not the stupid bit.

The stupid bit is on the underground now where we are constaly told that we must touch in and touch out to aviod paying the full fare. Let that sink in a bit.

Touch in on the first senser at the start of your journey, and touch out at the last sensor at the end of your journey. Why? I have a monthly travel card, I don't get charged on a fare to fare basis, but one monthly payment that won't change(well for a year or so)

This touch in and touch out bollox is rubbish, why do they do it, they are in fact telling porkies(lies for the non Londoner). I'll tell you why because as you touch in your detials are taken(I.E. your name, where you live, and your DOB), and when you touch out at the other end, these same details are taken again.

Again let that sink in.

So London Transport has a record(which they keep for 3 months) of who you are, where you live, how old you are, and perhaps more scarily, your movements. Again why do they need this? Well they don't but the police can ask to search these records when they like.

Police state, shit we've all been living in one for years, and nobody has noticed.


Tony B. Liar's britain.

I don't see the problem with cars having a black box. If you don't want a speeding ticket then don't speed, simple.

I see a problem with cars having black boxes. I'll slap a magnet on it.

Privacy is a fallacy. What you do in public is just that and people should be protected whether they want that protection or not. If you want to matter to remain private do it at home.

Even then we can listen in but only if you are up to no good and for the love of ... put a shirt on.

Privacy is a fallacy. What you do in public is just that and people should be protected whether they want that protection or not. If you want to matter to remain private do it at home.

Even then we can listen in but only if you are up to no good and for the love of ... put a shirt on.

By that line of reasoning should public bathrooms be allowed to be video monitored?

Privacy is a fallacy. What you do in public is just that and people should be protected whether they want that protection or not. If you want to matter to remain private do it at home.

Even then we can listen in but only if you are up to no good and for the love of ... put a shirt on.


Heheh facisim isn't dead then?

By that line of reasoning should public bathrooms be allowed to be video monitored?

Well, we could put a wireless cam up everyone's ass...

Heheh facisim isn't dead then?

no theres still alot of us left.

I don't see the problem with cars having a black box. If you don't want a speeding ticket then don't speed, simple.

I'd agree with this if the speed limits on most streets weren't ridiculously low. I understand a low speed limit on residential streets or near a school, but most speed limits are truly ridiculous. It's like they just through out a number and went with it.


I would feel safer if others had that blackbox recorder. I don't drive myself, I regard it as too risky and dangerous, and I don't want to endanger others.

Let's put it this way : if you're driving on the street, you are driving on government property. The government specifies what you can and can't do on it. And if the government decides to survey its property to ensure that all those who use it adhere to the laws, its got all rights to do so.

Yes, the government can survey its property, not mine. My car is my property. The government wants to check on speeders? Great, it can do so by placing monitoring devices on its own property - cameras, radar guns, etc. on the roads.

I see no real difference between the government placing a black box in my car to see if I'm breaking laws and the government placing a black box in my home to see if I'm breaking laws or the government tapping my phone to see if I'm breaking laws. These thigns are are my property and the government has no place in them without a warrant or an emergency reason to be there.

I think this is necessary

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/CeilingcatNSA.b.jpg

no theres still alot of us left.


Facism is far worse than any religous inspired shit. what gives anybody the right to say live how we tell you to live? It is neither God given, nor logicly sound, nor even great thinking.

Facism is far worse than any religous inspired shit. what gives anybody the right to say live how we tell you to live? It is neither God given, nor logicly sound, nor even great thinking.

i like to tell people what to do cause i dont trust them to do stupid shit that will effect me. fascism came to power without any deaths. any violence caused by the fascists, mussolini appologised for. it took bloodshed to get rid off it. he was considered to me the "best statesman" thier time. france tried to copy, didnt work. churchill said if england ever came under communist threat, it would be a better alternative. germany just fucked everything up.

I don't mind having cameras in public areas; it's not like people can't see you anyway.

I don't mind having cameras in public areas; it's not like people can't see you anyway.

It's scary enough when people I can see look at me. I don't want people I can't see watching me, too.

And if there was actually public transportation around here, maybe there wouldn't be a necessity to drive, but as it is right now, it is a necessity. It's fine that they have cameras on lights so that they can ticket people who run red lights, but putting a black box in everybody's personal vehicle seems a bit extreme to me.

i like to tell people what to do cause i dont trust them to do stupid shit that will effect me.

That's all well and fine, I suppose, if you're in charge. What happens when you have a fascist system with the stupid people doing all sorts of things that affect you get in charge?

I think it would be a much better idea to put the black boxes in the cars of thoes who have had multiple speeding tickets only.

Human guards.

If I commit a crime in front of a CCTV, it isn't going to stop me. A human guard can take action to actually stop a crime.

I'll take the CCTV camera over 'Bubba the Child Toucher' any day.

No monitoring is acceptable.

As far as speeding and the like, the reason they ticket people is not about safety, it is about making money. If they were truly concerned about safety and believed speeding so greatly increased the danger then why make the majority of cars to reach a maximum speed of over 100mph? There is absolutely no point behind it in the US. Is it because of the 14th Ammendment that we have cars that do double the maximum speed limit in the US? NO. It is to give people the opportunity to go faster than the government allows and thus give the government the opportunity to catch them and collect a nice fee for their transgression.

Next time you think that they don't have quotas for ticketing in most states, check out the amount of times you are forced to slow down so a police road block may check out your registration and inspection and ticket those who lack the required documents, and see how often these roadblocks are during the beginning of the month or at the end. In NY you only really see these roadblocks during the last week of the month. Why? beacause of an unwritten policy by NY police to require any officer out looking for tickets to write at least one per day. That was told to me by a couple of cops.

That's all well and fine, I suppose, if you're in charge. What happens when you have a fascist system with the stupid people doing all sorts of things that affect you get in charge?

hence i should be in charge.

How about none?

Why can't the government just stay the fuck out of people's lives?

How about none?

Why can't the government just stay the fuck out of people's lives?

great idea. lets get rid of laws and start flinging shit at each other!

great idea. lets get rid of laws and start flinging shit at each other!

Yeah, because that's exactly what I meant.

It seems that the only way your kind can attempt to make any sort of argument is to twist everyone else's words... Odd, because it only ends up making you guys look like the bigger assholes.

How about none?

Why can't the government just stay the fuck out of people's lives?

looking back to see if i miss read it.

cant seem to interperate it in any other way.
thats why we have laws, to interfere with other peoples lives so they dont interfere with us, badly.
they should make traffic laws stricter. good for the enviroment, less people on roads, less deaths on roads.

Something significantly lower than what Britain does.

Laws are for those in power to restrict those without power, nothing more. This is why democratic nations usually have more freedom than authoritarian ones. This is also why you see many more police in poor areas than rich ones. Is it because poor people are more likely to be criminals than rich? No, it is because poor people are much more closely monitored than rich and lack the funds to get out of a predicament once they are caught.

Now while there are exceptions to every rule, I found this one to be very applicable: Behind every rich man's horde is a crime.