Does that mean we can leave out all our ultra-violent neighbourhoods too? European countries are vastly more homogenous? Based on what evidence? You don't have a fucking clue do you?
Depends on what you're waiting for. When I injured my shoulder I had it xrayed the next day to ensure there was nothing really serious. To get an ultrasound to check the soft tissue it was 3 weeks. I can see my own doctor within two days or any doctor at the same practice the next day.
The benefits they were talking about stripping from identified rioters were unemployment benefit and housing benefit which has nothing to do with healthcare. Those benefits have never been automatic. In any case it didn't actually happen so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Your insurance companies can in reality refuse to provide care even if the customer has paid them.
I also have the option of paying for an insurance plan if I want to so that I can get faster treatment than that provided by the state. However when I was poor I was incredibly grateful that when I got sick I was allowed to get better and now I'm better off I am still happy to pay for other people's care.
When I get sick I go to the doctor. I don't have to wonder whether I can afford to do it, or keep thousands of pounds in reserve just in case. Damn my evil government.
It is not in any way, shape or form a tax. Your example is meaningless. Every smoker has to pay the tax. Every driver doesn't have to pay the texting 'tax'. It is an easily avoided non-tax since it is merely a punishment for a misdemeanour, much like a parking fine isn't a tax, it's a punishment for parking where you shouldn't (which you can challenge and get overturned - try that with the cigarette actual tax) and a fine for littering isn't a tax it's a punishment for dropping things on the ground.
And here we differ. As I have already said before. If it was extremely dangerous, we would be seeing a lot more accidents. I see it multiple times EVERY day during commutes. You just have no idea about the estimation of risk. You must be a safety fanatic that thinks everyone who does not drive with both hands on 10 and 2 are maniacs who should have their money confiscated from them by the state. And yes. I value freedom. I do not want any whiny pussy deciding what behavior is permissible based upon some paranoid delusion about their risk. I risk more every time I drive around the block on my motorcycle.
If it was extremely dangerous it wouldn't be a fine it would be a more severe punishment but there have been plenty of crashes due to morons texting, some fatal. A lot of people drive drunk but fatal accidents are rare. Does that make it ok? Do you text while you're riding your bike? After all it's not dangerous in your opinion.
And here we come to the real meat of the matter. You have an authoritarian streak. You do not say that you want people punished when someone texting nearly runs you off the road or cuts you off or nearly rear ends you. You just don't want them to text because it pisses you off. You see them text as they go by and you can't stand the fact that they are doing something that you think they shouldn't be doing. You overestimate the safety risk and instantly want to hurt them. You feel taking away some of their hard earned money is a good way to hurt them, but it only hurts the ones who don't have money.
Wrong. I don't want them putting me and other people at risk which is what they are doing by taking their eyes off the road at 90 miles an hour. It's still in no way a tax; I will never pay it because I will never text while driving. But then to you all fines are taxes because you're incapable of rational thought when your freedom to be a dumbass is restricted. I hear it all the time.
There are much better ways to curtail the behavior, but buying SUVs and peeping in windows is not it.
Name two.
It is really only good for bringing in more money.
People stop doing it and the money immediately stops coming in. This isn't a speed limit sign hidden behind a tree catching unwary drivers. This is a bunch of highly visible SUVs to discourage dangerous behaviour.
And as I said, you're too pigheaded to see it.
We're both pigheaded but in this case I'm the one who's right. Try looking up the dictionary definition of tax and the dictionary definition of fine and see how they differ.
The only people who have to pay this 'tax' are the ones who break the rule on texting while driving. Therefore it is not a tax it is a punishment. I'm not being pigheaded in any way you're just wrong. I only mentioned Somalia because you started wittering on about freedom, as if the freedom to do something extremely dangerous to themselves and others is a freedom that should be defended. I happen to agree with some libertarian ideals, however when I see people texting away at 90mph I want them to be punished and I personally think a fine is not enough but it's a start.
Wrong. I just want people who do dangerous things whilst in charge of a couple of tons of metal to be punished. Now if you think that being fined is not a punishment then you're obviously very well paid. The majority of people aren't and so it will hopefully act as a deterent. As to the rest of the libertardian drivel I'm not even going to dignify it with a reply. I'll just recommend a trip to Somalia for you where you can text and drive to your heart's content.
Easy money collected from people putting others at risk with their retarded behaviour. How is it in any way a bad idea? Let me guess. You're one of the total fucktards who thinks that sending a message that can wait is more important than the safety of others.
I want the police to arrest dangerous drivers thanks. If people are too retarded to realise that they're putting everyone around them at serious risk just so they can send a stupid message then I want them off the road. This is no different to arresting drunk drivers or boy racers.
Slashdot Mirror
When were guns banned in the UK? No-one's told all the people who own them legally then.
Does that mean we can leave out all our ultra-violent neighbourhoods too? European countries are vastly more homogenous? Based on what evidence? You don't have a fucking clue do you?
The law they are being prosecuted under is the 1986 Public Order Act put into law by the government of that famous leftie Margaret Thatcher.
Another thing blamed on the left which was actually put in by Thatcher / Major. Like speed cameras and free movement of people in the EU.
Has it been used as a replacement for 'use' by buzzword-spouting marketdroids for that long?
Depends on what you're waiting for. When I injured my shoulder I had it xrayed the next day to ensure there was nothing really serious. To get an ultrasound to check the soft tissue it was 3 weeks. I can see my own doctor within two days or any doctor at the same practice the next day.
The benefits they were talking about stripping from identified rioters were unemployment benefit and housing benefit which has nothing to do with healthcare. Those benefits have never been automatic. In any case it didn't actually happen so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Your insurance companies can in reality refuse to provide care even if the customer has paid them.
I also have the option of paying for an insurance plan if I want to so that I can get faster treatment than that provided by the state. However when I was poor I was incredibly grateful that when I got sick I was allowed to get better and now I'm better off I am still happy to pay for other people's care.
When I get sick I go to the doctor. I don't have to wonder whether I can afford to do it, or keep thousands of pounds in reserve just in case. Damn my evil government.
Being able to go to the doctor whenever you are sick without having to do a cost benefit analysis first.
It is not in any way, shape or form a tax. Your example is meaningless. Every smoker has to pay the tax. Every driver doesn't have to pay the texting 'tax'. It is an easily avoided non-tax since it is merely a punishment for a misdemeanour, much like a parking fine isn't a tax, it's a punishment for parking where you shouldn't (which you can challenge and get overturned - try that with the cigarette actual tax) and a fine for littering isn't a tax it's a punishment for dropping things on the ground.
If it was extremely dangerous it wouldn't be a fine it would be a more severe punishment but there have been plenty of crashes due to morons texting, some fatal. A lot of people drive drunk but fatal accidents are rare. Does that make it ok? Do you text while you're riding your bike? After all it's not dangerous in your opinion.
Wrong. I don't want them putting me and other people at risk which is what they are doing by taking their eyes off the road at 90 miles an hour. It's still in no way a tax; I will never pay it because I will never text while driving. But then to you all fines are taxes because you're incapable of rational thought when your freedom to be a dumbass is restricted. I hear it all the time.
Name two.
People stop doing it and the money immediately stops coming in. This isn't a speed limit sign hidden behind a tree catching unwary drivers. This is a bunch of highly visible SUVs to discourage dangerous behaviour.
We're both pigheaded but in this case I'm the one who's right. Try looking up the dictionary definition of tax and the dictionary definition of fine and see how they differ.
The only people who have to pay this 'tax' are the ones who break the rule on texting while driving. Therefore it is not a tax it is a punishment. I'm not being pigheaded in any way you're just wrong. I only mentioned Somalia because you started wittering on about freedom, as if the freedom to do something extremely dangerous to themselves and others is a freedom that should be defended. I happen to agree with some libertarian ideals, however when I see people texting away at 90mph I want them to be punished and I personally think a fine is not enough but it's a start.
Wrong. I just want people who do dangerous things whilst in charge of a couple of tons of metal to be punished. Now if you think that being fined is not a punishment then you're obviously very well paid. The majority of people aren't and so it will hopefully act as a deterent. As to the rest of the libertardian drivel I'm not even going to dignify it with a reply. I'll just recommend a trip to Somalia for you where you can text and drive to your heart's content.
Easy money collected from people putting others at risk with their retarded behaviour. How is it in any way a bad idea? Let me guess. You're one of the total fucktards who thinks that sending a message that can wait is more important than the safety of others.
In industries with low competition yes. That hardly describes supermarkets.
Razor?
I want the police to arrest dangerous drivers thanks. If people are too retarded to realise that they're putting everyone around them at serious risk just so they can send a stupid message then I want them off the road. This is no different to arresting drunk drivers or boy racers.
I think I deserve a Slashdot achievement at the very least :-)
That's because it's spelled correctly.
'Agape' isn't made up from 'a' and 'gape' and 'other' is either an adjective or a pronoun when it's part of 'another'.
There'sareasonwhyspellingwasstandardised.Itmakescommunicationeasier.
Ahyourspacebarnowworks.Jollygood.
Just as a matter of interest is there a word in English made from an indefinite article and a noun?
Itwasasarcasticriposte.
NoIdidn't.
willdo
You'reverywelcome.I'malwayshappytohelp.