Well, no. The 10% this is part of the law to take into account slight variations. Accidentally going 1mph over the limit isn't breaking the law but doing 40 in a 30 is.
I agree that not all laws should be automatically and mechanically enforced but that was never really my point. As a sweeping statement though, choosing to deliberately break a well established law should have consequences, otherwise that law is rendered useless.
giving governments the authority to define what is and is not a crime for example. Sad.
Really? Isn't that one of the major roles of any government? Admittedly, there are many ways in which they choose to do this and it is usually split across several bodys but still...I really don't see "Government Deciding to Enforce Law" as a problem.
This is statistically how most criminals are caught; by citizens reporting crimes
Your right, but not for 'small' crimes like this. They mostly go un-punished. I have had absolutely no affect on this guy's driving habits by reporting him.
I like V for Vendetta too and I'm firmly in the camp of 'Brits who hope the Big Evil Plan isn't going to happen...Must be all the programming.
I disagree. In an ideally police state, there will not be a huge need for police.
I think in an ideal state there will not be a huge need for police, yes. But then that means that a small number of police (or none at all) would be sufficient. Do you disagree that an ideal state would have enough police, or that this is impractical?
At what point does reporting crimes become fascist? If you saw someone being shot, you'd report it right?
If you had to drive such that you never exceeded the limit, you would have to drive at 10mph less than the limit, just to make sure. So what appears to be enforcement of the limit is really a reduction of the limit.
I see your point, but by the same argument the opposite is not enforcing the limit which equates to an increase of the limit. Hence the emphasis on repeated and deliberate offences.
This isn't talking about technical crimes, it's talking about people who break the law because they know no-one who can do anything is watching.
But I doubt this is for people to report whenever a neighbour makes a mistake. It's for people who regularly and deliberately break the law when they know that no police are watching.
There is a driver who lives near me who regularly skips red lights and speeds, unless there is a police car about. Currently, I have no power to report him, even if I have evidence so he carries on knowing full well that he can get away with it.
In an ideally policed state, there would be sufficient police employed to witness or prevent every deliberate crime but this is impractical.
So I doubt that, as the article suggests "Councils are unlikely to ignore tip-offs" if they are a one off, but if several come in from different people, then they may pay attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, ok. I though the 10% thing was included in the letter, but it doesn't look like it is...
Well, no. The 10% this is part of the law to take into account slight variations. Accidentally going 1mph over the limit isn't breaking the law but doing 40 in a 30 is.
I agree that not all laws should be automatically and mechanically enforced but that was never really my point. As a sweeping statement though, choosing to deliberately break a well established law should have consequences, otherwise that law is rendered useless.
giving governments the authority to define what is and is not a crime for example. Sad.
Really? Isn't that one of the major roles of any government? Admittedly, there are many ways in which they choose to do this and it is usually split across several bodys but still...I really don't see "Government Deciding to Enforce Law" as a problem.
This is statistically how most criminals are caught; by citizens reporting crimes
Your right, but not for 'small' crimes like this. They mostly go un-punished. I have had absolutely no affect on this guy's driving habits by reporting him.
I like V for Vendetta too and I'm firmly in the camp of 'Brits who hope the Big Evil Plan isn't going to happen...Must be all the programming.
Yeah, your right, that was terribly phrased. I can report him, but it really has no effect.
If police did already pay attention to every report, then this artice would be pointless.
I disagree. In an ideally police state, there will not be a huge need for police.
I think in an ideal state there will not be a huge need for police, yes. But then that means that a small number of police (or none at all) would be sufficient. Do you disagree that an ideal state would have enough police, or that this is impractical?
At what point does reporting crimes become fascist? If you saw someone being shot, you'd report it right?
If you had to drive such that you never exceeded the limit, you would have to drive at 10mph less than the limit, just to make sure. So what appears to be enforcement of the limit is really a reduction of the limit.
I see your point, but by the same argument the opposite is not enforcing the limit which equates to an increase of the limit. Hence the emphasis on repeated and deliberate offences.
This isn't talking about technical crimes, it's talking about people who break the law because they know no-one who can do anything is watching.
But I doubt this is for people to report whenever a neighbour makes a mistake. It's for people who regularly and deliberately break the law when they know that no police are watching.
There is a driver who lives near me who regularly skips red lights and speeds, unless there is a police car about. Currently, I have no power to report him, even if I have evidence so he carries on knowing full well that he can get away with it.
In an ideally policed state, there would be sufficient police employed to witness or prevent every deliberate crime but this is impractical.
So I doubt that, as the article suggests "Councils are unlikely to ignore tip-offs" if they are a one off, but if several come in from different people, then they may pay attention.