Gingerbreadman
Member
Every new thing I read about the UK seems to read more like science fiction. Scary if you ask me.
the UK has finally lost it
- Thread starter woodybrighton
- Start date
- Status
jrfoxx
Member
hey, why not.Seems like the've banned almost everything else at this point...why stop now?
And, could someone from England explain the quote from the article to me? Why are crash helmets a problem, and were enough people wearing them around town and in banks it was a problem? I dont get it.
And, could someone from England explain the quote from the article to me? Why are crash helmets a problem, and were enough people wearing them around town and in banks it was a problem? I dont get it.
Actualy I knew this was coming long ago!
(I really thought they would ban any form of disguise that allowed someone to hide from a camera.)
A society that comes to rely and depend on a sense of security provided by the loss of outdoor privacy via CCTV everywhere, cannot allow things which allow people to escape those prying eyes.
That means all methods of concealment or disguise of ones face or personal features must be outlawed.
That is especialy true with things like facial recognition software.
No honest person needs to hide thier face. Only those with something to hide would want to legaly be able to cover thier face.
The goal is to be able to point a camera at any person walking down the street (and everyone in London is on a CCTV camera several hundred times a day), and have facial recognition give you a very narrow list of possibilities of identity, some of which won't be from the area further narrowing likeliness of who it is.
It would probably be easier to just force everyone to wear bar codes though, and make it illegal for anyone to walk around without one.
They could be tiny tags, or even RFID chips. Not wearing one could be made a felony, and cheap checkpoints, cheaper than a CCTV camera could be installed throughout the city tracking and monitoring everyone. Linked with cameras it would be obvious to anyone at the monitoring station who everyone was on the camera. They could even have a map overlay of the city showing every person in the city at any time by knowing the last RFID scanner anyone walked past.
First it could be passed to keep track of criminals, implement all the necessary hardware, work out any bugs etc. Then some serious crime can be used as an excuse to motivate the public and legislators to make everyone "safer" by requiring everyone to have such a tag.
It is not science fiction, it could be easily and cheaply implemented, and it would not really be an inconvenience to anyone on a daily basis.
It is no more complex than automated toll booths which work on the same technology.
Perhaps after it has successfuly been implemented and demonstrated in the small UK test environment our own government can make us safer in the same way!
Of course our own government still has more serious things to restrict first, like powerful firearms that still pose a threat.
(Sarcasm. I do not condone the loss of freedom or privacy, especialy when more people were killed by thier own governments in the 20th century than in all wars combined.)
(I really thought they would ban any form of disguise that allowed someone to hide from a camera.)
A society that comes to rely and depend on a sense of security provided by the loss of outdoor privacy via CCTV everywhere, cannot allow things which allow people to escape those prying eyes.
That means all methods of concealment or disguise of ones face or personal features must be outlawed.
That is especialy true with things like facial recognition software.
No honest person needs to hide thier face. Only those with something to hide would want to legaly be able to cover thier face.
The goal is to be able to point a camera at any person walking down the street (and everyone in London is on a CCTV camera several hundred times a day), and have facial recognition give you a very narrow list of possibilities of identity, some of which won't be from the area further narrowing likeliness of who it is.
It would probably be easier to just force everyone to wear bar codes though, and make it illegal for anyone to walk around without one.
They could be tiny tags, or even RFID chips. Not wearing one could be made a felony, and cheap checkpoints, cheaper than a CCTV camera could be installed throughout the city tracking and monitoring everyone. Linked with cameras it would be obvious to anyone at the monitoring station who everyone was on the camera. They could even have a map overlay of the city showing every person in the city at any time by knowing the last RFID scanner anyone walked past.
First it could be passed to keep track of criminals, implement all the necessary hardware, work out any bugs etc. Then some serious crime can be used as an excuse to motivate the public and legislators to make everyone "safer" by requiring everyone to have such a tag.
It is not science fiction, it could be easily and cheaply implemented, and it would not really be an inconvenience to anyone on a daily basis.
It is no more complex than automated toll booths which work on the same technology.
Perhaps after it has successfuly been implemented and demonstrated in the small UK test environment our own government can make us safer in the same way!
Of course our own government still has more serious things to restrict first, like powerful firearms that still pose a threat.
(Sarcasm. I do not condone the loss of freedom or privacy, especialy when more people were killed by thier own governments in the 20th century than in all wars combined.)
woodybrighton
member
full face crash helmets with a tinted visor were at one time the favoured mask for bankrobbers 
if you think about it a lot less obvious than a mask.
now most banks and offices will ask you to take your helmet off and have big notices up to state this. unfortunately few motorbike couriers can or can be bothered to read
so every so often some courier finds the alarm goes off :banghead:
if you think about it a lot less obvious than a mask.now most banks and offices will ask you to take your helmet off and have big notices up to state this. unfortunately few motorbike couriers can or can be bothered to read
so every so often some courier finds the alarm goes off :banghead:sacp81170a
Member
The brain is useful as a weapon only if a person is allowed to develop and hone it as such. There are a myriad of ways to do so, and using weapons of any sort is an effective means to achieve this end. In Japanese martial arts the sword is considered an essential tool in development of hand to hand skills; this holds true in the Filipino and Malaysian arts: learn the weapon(s) and the hands will follow.
The trouble is, this applies to any tool, so the only way to keep people from using their brains in this manner is to outlaw tools. Not gonna happen. History has shown that when denied access to common weapons technology humans have pressed all sorts of objects into service, from the handles of rice grinders to staffs, sickles, hoes, etc. The common thread is the aggressive nature of humans.
Using the brain and body as a weapon requires no literacy or specialized training so the only choice is to try and control the thoughts of the populace so they abhor using their brains as weapons. Trouble is, the message isn't going to be accepted uniformly so there will always be those whose aggressive instincts are intact. Rather than accepting those aggressive instincts and channeling them to useful or at least benign purpose, it seems the government of the UK and the vocal minority has chosen to deny that they exist.
The same thing is happening in this country, but to a far lesser extent, partly because of our strong tradition of self sufficiency and a written Constitution that clearly preserves our right to possess the tools to defend ourselves quite independently of government power.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't. You can't fool mother nature...
jrfoxx
Member
Ohhhh, a motorcycle helmet.Ok. that makes more sense.I was picturing people strolling around London sidewalks wearing white bicycle type helmets or something for whatever wierd reason.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
I think they realize that the increasing restrictions aren't working. It would require admitting that they were wrong from the git-go...and I just don't hold a lot of hope for that.
Sato Ord
Member
Hey, I know, let's just make everyone run around naked. That way they can't carry any kind of concealed weapon, or hide their identities. Who knows, it might even help relieve some of the nation's health expenses because people will be embarrassed into losing those extra pounds.
How asinine can law makers get? We seem to be in contest with the UK and Canada for the most foolish laws passed to protect the citizens. Fortunately, for the time being, we here in the U.S. are losing the contest. Although, they are going to security cameras in Orlando, Florida to help "take a bite out of crime". I guess O town will have to ban hoodies next, too.
Of course none of those jackasses who put these laws into effect will ever admit that such nonsense is just feel good legislation that, at best, just make the criminal get more creative. In most cases it just makes it easier for the criminal to operate.
How asinine can law makers get?
We seem to be in contest with the UK and Canada for the most foolish laws passed to protect the citizens. Fortunately, for the time being, we here in the U.S. are losing the contest. Although, they are going to security cameras in Orlando, Florida to help "take a bite out of crime". I guess O town will have to ban hoodies next, too.Of course none of those jackasses who put these laws into effect will ever admit that such nonsense is just feel good legislation that, at best, just make the criminal get more creative. In most cases it just makes it easier for the criminal to operate.
Focke-Wolf
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 59
What boils my blood is that not a single politician in UK will talk about 'self-defense weapons'. NOT ONE. They never had to ban self-defense, all they had to do was ban incapacitatant spray etc.
All they talk about is how the police can do etc. etc. but IT DOESNT DO SQUAT to provide protection for INDIVIDUALS.
All they talk about is how the police can do etc. etc. but IT DOESNT DO SQUAT to provide protection for INDIVIDUALS.
Focke-Wolf
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 59
Mike Burke (Constitutional lawyer) and John Hurst (retired MET police officer) are good people to talk to regarding this matter.
Dravur
Member
hahahaha
OMG, I cant stop laughing. I thought I had seen it all in jolly ole england....
I am watching with baited breath as the pols in Britain step over themselves in getting the criminal vote.
Sheep being led by the retarded.... sad, really.
OMG, I cant stop laughing. I thought I had seen it all in jolly ole england....
I am watching with baited breath as the pols in Britain step over themselves in getting the criminal vote.
Sheep being led by the retarded.... sad, really.
Focke-Wolf
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 59
It's a shame, Britain used to take NO **** from criminals til 50'60s I believe.
Even the police officers there, while I have no doubt in my mind they are good people, believe that only they should carry incapacitant spray, baton etc.
Even the police officers there, while I have no doubt in my mind they are good people, believe that only they should carry incapacitant spray, baton etc.
Focke-Wolf
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 59
Sato Ord
Member
fokket, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but internet petitions are pretty much ignored by the vast majority of politicians.
Even if some aide reads the petition he/she will file it with one little mark if he/she doesn't just move on and forget it. It won't even get a real file, just a place on the office computer. If you get a hundred thousand signatures on one petition that is on paper, you get one file, with a bunch of pieces of paper in it and they might start to take notice.
If you get those same hundred thousand people to each write an individual letter then you get one hundred thousand individual sub files that go into a larger file. That will get their attention.
If people aren't willing to do a little work to write a damn letter, then they aren't all that interested in the subject and can expect to get as much attention from their elected officials as they themselves are willing to put into it.
You may think that what I've just said is a load of crap, but I have friends who are political aides. They tell me just how this all works. Internet petitions are just ignored, letter writing campaigns get attention.
Even if some aide reads the petition he/she will file it with one little mark if he/she doesn't just move on and forget it. It won't even get a real file, just a place on the office computer. If you get a hundred thousand signatures on one petition that is on paper, you get one file, with a bunch of pieces of paper in it and they might start to take notice.
If you get those same hundred thousand people to each write an individual letter then you get one hundred thousand individual sub files that go into a larger file. That will get their attention.
If people aren't willing to do a little work to write a damn letter, then they aren't all that interested in the subject and can expect to get as much attention from their elected officials as they themselves are willing to put into it.
You may think that what I've just said is a load of crap, but I have friends who are political aides. They tell me just how this all works. Internet petitions are just ignored, letter writing campaigns get attention.
I rather like this idea for a ban. They need to keep banning things until quite literally there is nothing left to ban and crime is still rampant. Maybe then they'll realize it doesn't work, or perhaps the populous would finally wake up?
LightningJoe
Member
There'll probably be less crime once England gets sharia*. Of course, by then, they'll have changed their name from the old infidel/crusader name to something else. Try to guess what the last syllable will be.
*There'll also be no alcohol, no unaccompanied women on the streets, and nobody'll have enough money to be worth robbing.
*There'll also be no alcohol, no unaccompanied women on the streets, and nobody'll have enough money to be worth robbing.
Officers'Wife
Member
There is an old saying that people get the kind of government they deserve. If you don't know the political observation that follows America is in more trouble than I realized.
Selena
Selena
Its those darn hoodies and crusty jugglers.... Seriously though, unless its cold outside, I'm not a fan of hoodies. But if I had the authority to ban them, would I? No, because you ban one thing, it generally snowballs, next, no baggy jeans, etc. till everyone had to wear mandatory uniforms. As some one mentioned before, indoors, the hoods should be removed, as well as sunglasses. Just my 2 cents, for what they're worth.
The Wiry Irishman
Member
I wonder how many people realize that movies like V for Vendetta and books like 1984 weren't made merely to entertain.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Which, by the looks of things could be by the end of the decade.
Cromlech
Member
France will get it before us (going by the percentage of Muslims there rising so fast), so we shall probably observe it first there.
Sato Ord
Member
Well don't sit in America and count yourself lucky because the immigrants from typically extremist Muslim countries are going there and not here. We moan about illegal immigrants all the time. Here, however, we're usually down on Latin Americans. The statistics are out there. The Muslims from places like Iraq and other extremist countries are pouring in every day. The only immigrant group coming in faster, either legally or illegally, are the Catholics from the south.
Given the choice, I say, Hail Mary full of grace!
I just have a problem with any religion that teaches that you have the right to kill or enslave anyone who won't convert. At least the Catholic church has gotten over that part of their history.
Given the choice, I say, Hail Mary full of grace!
I just have a problem with any religion that teaches that you have the right to kill or enslave anyone who won't convert. At least the Catholic church has gotten over that part of their history.
Sato Ord
Member
Hook, who do you think put Saddam in power in the first place?
Same people who trained bin Laden.
If you are willing to look around for it you can probably still find photo op shots of Saddam and Ronald Regan shaking hands after America sold Iraq a bunch of surplus tanks and weapons, including cultures of anthrax.
Yesterday they were our friends, today they are our enemies, tomorrow, who knows?
Same people who trained bin Laden.
If you are willing to look around for it you can probably still find photo op shots of Saddam and Ronald Regan shaking hands after America sold Iraq a bunch of surplus tanks and weapons, including cultures of anthrax.
Yesterday they were our friends, today they are our enemies, tomorrow, who knows?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
