Hitler in the 21st century

Yes, I think that most drivers are responsible people, call me naive but that's what I think. But the dickheads are only going to go and do the same thing on some other, speedbump-free road.Speedbumps aren't solving the problem, they're just tranferring it somewhere else!If you want to stop the problem why not have police arrest those teenagers and the judicial throw them in jail for a few years? The person on their cellphone is just driving without due care and attention, there is no speed limit that will stop them from causing an accident. If anything a ridiculous speed limit will only make you unnecessarily slam your foot on the break pedal (especially if there's a speed camera next to it) and cause the person behind you to bump into you.Here's a wild idea: why not harshly punish dangerous and reckless drivers and leave the responsible-driving majority get on with their lives ?!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

LOL! This is uncanny! I said I thought it might happen soon, I just didn't expect it that soon!On with your poster-drawing Mick, there's a good follower.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, punishment doesnt deter action from people who dont use forethought

---

If that punishment includes a few years behind bars it will at least ensure that they physically cannot take the same action in the near future.Why penalize all of us for a few people's stupidity?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

If that's all true then you should consider yourself very, very lucky. The rest of us can't afford to change houses evey time we change our job. We have partners and kids who need us there in the evening with them, not trapped in our cars for hours on end because of some speed-phobic parish councillor. We worry about paying our mortgage and supporting our families and we don't want to be jobless and homeless so that the self-righteous minority can sleep better at night, knowing that they "...might have saved a life".

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Would you say to someone who's being racially abused "you can stay here and receive the abuse or you can move somewhere else"?
Would you say the same thing to someone who's discriminated against because of their religion or sex?Intimidating people into moving out because of their race/religion/colour is called ethnic cleansing. Doing the same thing to someone because of their need to drive a car is called "lifestyle choices". It's a funny old world isn' it ? yes, just volume of traffic caused by ridiculously low speed limits, speed bumps, road narrowing, bus lanes, and other 'traffic calming' measures. They sure calmed you down. Well, it seems the authorities are taking your advice to heart, because that's exactly what they're doing.Then, they'll use the congestion that they created to impose....congestion charges! It all fits in quite beautifully, don't you think? Extreme speed control is an unnecessary addition. Only if you extend the same courtesy to me. No we're not, we're looking at ideology and the politics of self-righteousness. No we're not. We're trying to make the car fit in with the small, vocal, self-righteous minority's need. Getting it wrong once is bad luck. Getting it wrong twice is stupidity. Getting it wrong every single time is a well executed plan.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

The huge difference being that I'm not trying to shout other people down or shame/guilt them into accepting my opinion. I'm using clear, logical arguments to highlight the practical effects our authoritarian traffic policy has on people and expose the lies and propaganda we're fed in order to accept this policy. No, I don't. Read what I write not what you think I write. I highlighted the hypocricy of tolerating certain types of intimidation and not others.If a person is racially or sexually harassed, noone would dare to suggest that they should move away from the area where they, their family and friends live in order to end the harassment. If this person is a motorist however and the harassment is state-sponsored that, somehow, makes it ok.Bullying people out of their homes/area in the name of some ideology should be unacceptable, regardless of the victims' race, sexual orientation, religion or chosen mode of transport.P.S The debate was focused on the negative effects of our totalitarian traffic policy and the absence of its alleged benefits but you ignored it and chose to go down the "if you don't like it, move out" route.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

All motorists are equally discriminated against, yes.On second thoughts, the ones with one or more 'speeding' convictions are forced to pay higher insurance premiums, so I suppose some of us are discriminated against more than others. Yes, harassment of the motorists by a loud, self-righteous, minority through state laws. Oh...bless.. you're making me laugh... The statement above is correct only if by community you mean the small, like-minded set of parish councillors who meet every so often to decide what's best for the rest of us.The real community only learns of these decisions when the new, lower, speed-limit signs are erected on the side of the road. That's when everybody wonders "WTF did they do that for?"That's what a particular community thinks of the traffic-calming measures and their impact on their lives:

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Just because you refuse to accept something doesn't mean I haven't shown it. You must have missed the posts where I displayed the data that demonstrates that the last decade of 'traffic-calming' regulations had negligible effect on road casualties. Try reading through Message 80 again, if you're interested. I've shown you the slogans thrusted upon us day and night through tv and radio ("speed kills", "safety cameras", etc)
I've shown you real-life cases where people attribute any and all accidents to speed -regardless of what actually happened- and demand the govenrnment-proposed solution for their safety without even considering any alternatives. Which is exactly the expected effect of the constant propaganda.I mean, what else do you want to see? I've never attended a "brainwashing 101" course but I'd expect the above to be in the core syllabus. Only in my last post I said :

quote:

---

...only if by community you mean the small, like-minded set of parish councillors who meet every so often to decide what's best for the rest of us.

---

Traffic policy in the UK is decided by a small minority of people with moral, political and financial motivations:1) Local councils will campaign for traffic measures, after small, badly publicised, meetings where opposition is drowned out with emotional, self-righteous arguments, as happened in my case.
2) Local highway authorities -acting under government guidelines- will consider these measures and possibly request police consultation. As a proportion of the enforcement fines go into police coffers, the police will push for as low speed limits as they can, as this will guarantee them a good revenue, even paying for their Xmas parties.
3) The highway authorities will apply the measures by making an order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The order must be publicised for people to potentially raise objections. The minimum publicity requirements -and the ones that are nearly always taken- are: i) Small-font notice on non-free local newspaper, ii) on-site notice.Even the people who buy the newspaper won't always spot the notice and the on-site notice consists of an A4 piece of paper stapled to a tree, which is practically impossible to read as you drive by. Furthermore, you have no easy way of finding out about measures outside your local area but which still may affect you, e.g. at the area where you work.To summarize, the general public aren't properly consulted and are given very little chance to object. So far, I've excused your ignorance as you don't live in Britain. I have now shown you the way things work here.Can you show me, in the process I described above, where is this democratic process that I allegedly despise?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

No, the effectiveness of the regulations isn't irrelevant, because only in your previous post you said: To which I responded, as above. So you can't now change your mind and say it's irrelevant. Modern traffic regulations in Britain are unjustified for safety reasons. Real-life cases demonstrate the effect of propaganda and brainwashing. Just like real-life cases in Nazi Germany help to demonstrate the effect of anti-Jewish propaganda. I have. Repeatedly. You just choose to ignore it. Here goes one more time,
Cause: Constant indoctrination that "speed kills" and that cameras and speed bumps are there for our safety.
Predicted Effect 1: People will attribute fatal accidents to speed, even without sufficient knowledge of the circumstances.
Predicted Effect 2: People will demand more anti-speed measures in order to feel more safe.
Observed Effects: exactly as 1 & 2 above. Now you're just being silly. Watching Big Brother has no predictive value. Other than perhaps making one dumber. Furthermore, we already know the cause of sunrise.Propaganda campaigns have predictive and measurable value. We can see how effective they are by observing people's behaviour. Why is this so difficult for you to accept ? A nominal one. Which I already showed is designed so as to involve as few people as possible. And I never said that it did. The propaganda campaign is there to influence the nominal consultation process, not as its side-effect. And as long as no authoritarian measures are being taken, then there's not much to worry about, despite the flaws in the process.It's just that in this country, in the last few years, this process has been used to apply measures that are unfair, unreasonable and unjust. Measures that cost people their livelihoods, freedom of movement and quality of life. I've already showed you that the consultation is for decor only, designed to involve as few people as possible. And noone has elected the traffic engineers, highway officers and policemen who ultimately decide what measures should be taken. So your only valid point would be the elected local councillors. But as I've already told you before, naming a certain Adolf as an example, being a democratically elected representative doesn't preclude one from being a fascist. When they put their own morality and ideology above the common good then they're no better than any dictator, democratically elected or not.In a nutshell, your argument comes down to this: anyone who opposes decisions and laws passed by their elected representatives, no matter how ridiculous or dangerous they might be, shows contempt for democracy.Maybe you should be saying this to any surviving Germans who opposed the Nuremberg Laws. Yes, maybe you should lambast those bitter democracy-haters, how dare they oppose laws that their elected representatives voted for!I hope you now realize how absurd your argument is and retract your statement about my showing contempt for the democratic process. I yearn for democratic processes, if only we had one...

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

I can see the trend myself, as I can compare community reactions to accidents 20 years ago to present day reactions. I can dig up maybe a dozen recent cases where accidents cause the same, knee-jerk reaction. Would that be enough for you? How many would constitute "evidence of a trend" to you?

quote:

---

Cause: Constant indoctrination that "speed kills" and that cameras and speed bumps are there for our safety.
Predicted Effect 1: People will attribute fatal accidents to speed, even without sufficient knowledge of the circumstances.
Predicted Effect 2: People will demand more anti-speed measures in order to feel more safe.
Observed Effects: exactly as 1 & 2 above.

---

How so? The 'normal' reaction to an accident would be to first to establish its cause and second see if you can prevent it. The current reaction is to assume that it was speed-related and demand anti-speed measures. The current bombardment of anti-speed logos has exactly this expected effect.if you keep telling people that speed causes most accidents then they'll attribute most accidents to speed irrespective of the real causes. How's that not making sense ?! Not following you. If you keep telling people that speed bumps are there for their safety, they'll demand more of them each time they feel unsafe. How's that not making sense ?! True, they're more of post-hoc rationalizations. Still valid, though. They're the expected outcome of the observed propaganda. That's demonstrably false. If that was the case, the only way to assess German or Soviet propaganda effectiveness would be to look at Goebbels/Stalin's manuscripts. Instead, we can easily tell the effects but looking at the change in people's behaviour, both in Germany and the Soviet Union. I've told you many times before, tune in to any British public radio/tv station and start counting the slogans. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself. I've repeatedly stated that the government is trying to criminalize and control people while making some extra money on the side. I've shown you the why and the how. Do I need to change the typeface or something, for you to notice ? We can infer the desired outcome based on the overall policy and other actions of the government, just like we've done in Nazi Germany, Soviet Union and other regimes with big propaganda drives. I don't think Goebbels ever wrote down exactly what he was trying to achieve by the 'Jews as vermin' films he was making, but we can take an educated guess based on his and his regime's actions, don't you think ? Ok, I don't know if it was "designed" to exclude people or if it just happened by accident. The fact remains that it does exclude the majority of people. First off, I'm not claiming that people voted for someone/something because they were fooled by propaganda. I'm claiming that they are accepting certain authoritarian measures partly because they're fooled by propaganda and partly because they're intimidated by it and by the vocal, self-righteous minority.And if by claiming this I'm accused of showing contempt for fellow voters, that sounds to me like just another way to intimidate/shame anyone who points out something different to the 'accepted' opinion. Not very democratic altogether. Absolutely. Any process that excludes people from decisions that directly affect them is authoritarian and should be shown contempt. You only have to look at Athens 2500 years ago. All citizens voted daily on all the issues. You may have a clue but you seem to be lacking historical knowledge. Looking at 1930s Germany and 5th century BC Athens it's not hard to tell which one we're closer to and which one we're miles away from.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

And looking at it only from the traffic regulations point of view, you'd be right in saying so. It's only when you start to observe the wider set of rules, laws and regulations that you start to discern patterns of regulatory behaviour. Like the traffic laws, many of these other laws are grossly oppressive and non-sensical and have no practical impact on the problems they're intended to solve.In the last ten years alone, the government has legislated more than 3000 new offences, that's about one new crime invented every day! The 'crimes' range from the petty ones like "selling grey squirels" or "failing to nominate a neighbour to turn off your noisy burglar alarm", to the hugely vague and open-ended ones like the recent anti-terrorist laws. Furthermore, even more worryingly, is the creation of thought crimes like the "not betraying a family member's terrorist activities" or the proposed anti-sadomasochistic sex sites regulations. I used to read about thought crimes in Orwell's '1984' and dismiss them as science fiction but now they are real and part of our everyday lives. All for our 'own protection' of course!The main pattern emerging out of all this is the establishment's desire to control and micro-manage every aspect of the citizen's lives. The traffic laws and enforcement I've been 'whinging' about in this thread are but a small facet of this pattern.The 'modus operandi' can also easily be discerned:1) Relinquishing individual responsibility to the state - Observed by the thousands of micro-managing laws, from banning smacking children to controlling the speed you're travelling at, the message is clear: "the state knows better than you, so let it manage your life for you, there is no need for you to think or make decisions!".The myriad of Health and Safety regulations are but a fine example of how every aspect of one's life falls under some petty rule or regulation, it's all for 'Health & Safety' you understand. Traffic management too, you don't need to look after your child's safety, that's what 'safety cameras' are there for!The criminal justice system also reflects this methodology. Everyone is a 'victim', noone is responsible for their own actions, only for someone else's. If I trip and fall it's not because I wasn't looking at where I was going, it's the council's fault for not straightening the pavestone. If, however, a drunken idiot in a kilt jumps out on the bonnet of my car (as happened a few yrs ago) it's my responsibility because I was driving a 'lethal weapon' and he was only wearing a kilt!2) Criminalisation of people and creation of climate of fear - I've already explained how this is achieved by oppressive 'traffic-calming' but for the non-driving public there are also the new anti-terrorist laws, suspension of habeas corpus, blanket surveillance, DNA collection from all and many, many others (also see criminal justice system paragraph above).3) Suppression of free speech - I'm not allowed to call my black colleagues 'black', my old colleagues 'old' and my pretty colleagues 'pretty'. There are dozens of no-free-speech laws coming under an 'anti-racist', 'anti-sexist', 'anti-something' cover. Let's not forget the "incitement to terrorism" laws, which would probably cover this post as it could be seen by someone as incitement to terrorism, it's just that vague. We also have the self-righteous brigade ready to drown out any voices opposing the holy causes, e.g. traffic calming, health and safety, equal opportunities, environment et al.So, please don't rush to dismiss my traffic regulations case in point as an exaggeration, it's just one small aspect of a very worrying trend that's only getting worse. We're not Nazi Germany yet, hopefully we'll never be, but let's just make sure this never happens.Like any good shepherd will tell you: start calling help as soon as you see the wolf approaching, for when he is upon you it will be too late.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

well, not any longer my friend! since last month you can't even think sadomasochistic thoughts in this country because the Thought Police have deemed that if you do, it means you're going to go out and kill someone.Let me repeat this in case it hasn't sunk in: watching conscenting adults performing non-harmful acts on each other in the privacy of their own home/studio is now a crime in the UK!what a petty, nasty, fucked-up little country we have become!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

On the contrary, this law is the very definition of a thought crime! It's directly based on the Coutts case and the reasoning behind it is that people who think about S&M (evidenced by their viewing of such websites) are going to go out and torture and kill people, like Coutts did.People are not being criminalised for what they do (after all it's legal for conscenting adults to engage in S&M), they're being criminalised for what they're thinking about doing, which according to the law-makers is to inflict pain and torture on the unsuspecting public.what does the Newspeak dictionary say?

quote:

---

To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought.

---

Well, this law means thoughts are now punishable.Step aside Daniel and Ezekiel, for George Orwell is the one true prophet!Edited by Legend, : grammar

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

You didn't read the article well, did you? The law forbids even the passive viewing of violent images. You're being punished for evidently thinking about violent sex.Even if it was only the downloading, the law still punishes you for your alleged thoughts. After all, downloading images of consenting adults with their explicit permission for private viewing doesn't cause anyone any harm, yet our self-righteous law-makers have decided that you're thinking about harming unconscenting members of the public so they're going to punish you. And if the Thought Police hear about it they'll be coming after you! If the Thought Police find evidence that you're thinking about it (e.g. downloaded images) you certainly will my friend! No, but your audience will! Didn't you hear about this new law I've been talking about in the last few posts? It criminalises people who are receptive to violent imagery. The law clearly allows for the possibility that the originator of the violent imagery might be a righteous crusader who tries to bait probable murderers out of their hidey-holes. Putting violent images on your website doesn't necessarily mean that you're thinking about it (according to the law), but willingly viewing those images... well there's no excuse for that, you're clearly thinking about murdering people and must be punished.Just because the law is stupid doesn't make the offence any less of a thought-crime.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

You post isn't evidence of a crime because the definition of evidence for the thought crime isn't that comprehensive just yet. Attach a S&M image to your post and it will be evidence of a crime, the crime of thinking about torturing and killing others.Like I said, just because the law is stupid doesn't make the offence less of a thought crime. Your actions don't cause anyone any harm. The law punishes you for what your actions allegedly imply about your thinking. It's a direct consequence of the Coutts case. The reasoning behind it is that if one psychopath is inspired by such images to go out and kill then everyone else is too!. I was just being facetious. Having said that, attach an image to your post and ask me again! No, ofcourse not. But you're missing the point. What the law punishes is your thinking about comitting cruelty to unconscenting people. It's now what you've done, it's what you're thinking about doing.The offence is there, the 'spirit' of the law is there. Just because the law isn't comprehensive enough at this initial stage to include audio or written evidence as well as visual evidence -thereby offering a loop-hole to your example above- doesn't mean that the offence is less of a thought-crime.The very definition of a thought-crime is criminalisation of what you think, not only of what you do. This is exactly what this law is all about. This inconsistency is just that, an inconsistency. I already gave you possible, albeit tongue-in-cheek, reasons why this inconsistency is there. Just because the law is stupidly written doesn't make the offence any less of a thought crime That's a set of pathetic and lamentable excuses, if there ever was one! Let's look at them one by one:1) 50,000 people signed a petition? really?! Well, 3,000,000 million people signed the anti-road-charge petition.What does the government do? issues a reply saying they're all wrong and goes ahead to introduce pilot road-charging schemes! This government has demonstrated repeatedly that it doesn't give a toss about what people want unless it suits its own purposes. Suggesting that it created a new law because 50,000 people wanted it is a serious insult to our intelligence.2) what a load of bollocks! These are conscentual acts between adults FFS! If the government's so keen on stopping people from harming themselves why isn't smoking and drinking a crime? Oh, I forget, it's because smokers and drinkers line-up the government coffers with tax revenue. What a monumental piece of hypocricy and covert fascism!3) How pompously and self-righteously pathetic! The governmernt worrying about reinforcing violent activity in society while at the same time sanctioning overwhelming violence against a country that never harmed it nor intended to do so. What message about violence does the Iraq war send our society you sad little hypocrites?4) Ah yes...the kids! the kids! This argument actually contradicts the law itself. If they were trying to prevent children from viewing these web-sites then they would be targeting the site owners and not the viewers. I won't even go into the implied assumption that porn is a catalyst for violent behaviour, this pathetic justification is already fucked-up as it is.Look, this law came to be because one psychopath addicted to violent imagery enacted his fantasy with an unconsenting victim. This law is clearly based on the premise that if one views such images then one is likely to re-enact them without conscent. In other words, the law implies that if you think about violent sex then you'll probably kill someone. You're criminalised for what you think (more precisely for what the law-makers believe you think), not for your actions (which ofcourse are lacking). Hence, it's a thought crime. You're getting hung-up on the fact that currentlly the law only uses images as evidence of the thoughts. That's irrelevant to the fact that the images are only used to demonstrate your thought-processes (as the law-makers perceive them).This is the equvalent of Orwell's Thought Police monitoring people's thoughts. This government hasn't got the technology to directly do that just yet, so it does the next best thing: makes wild assumptions about what you're thinking based on what you're viewing.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"