reclaiming our outsourced jobs, canceling all worker visas, banning of outsourcing, banning of multinational corporations, and fighting illegal immigration with the greater enthusiasm than drugs and terrorism.
That would be so fun...
Watching the states committing economic suicide, becoming unable to sell below any other country's prices or being forced to cut its entire workforce's salaries to china ranges.
Completely unsubstantiated bullshit. You obviously know nothing of the history of the USA's economy and foreign trade policy.
You do realize that your 200 dollar computers will start costing $800 if you ban outsourcing to China, right? And US exports will fall by about 90% because Canada and Europe will start making their own stuff with Chinese labor? And some of the Chinese workers, no longer "exploited" by multinationals, will go back to 15 hours a day subsistence farming in the hot sun?
Wait what? The US exports something other than food? I can't possibly imagine what that could other than jobs... care to enlighten us?
You fail to fully appreciate the buying power that is the American consumer.
I should add, that is the opposite of how it should be. The reality should be that being born in a 3rd world country should put you at a disadvantage to people like myself, born in a 1st world country.
You, sir, count nothing because you don't have enough money, and that is a fault. Don't like it? Move to Canada, hippie.
I actually do count. Not because I actually have a lot of money (and that is my fault because I work hard and have an eagle eye for opportunity), but because I'm a human being. Just to sink to your level, I'll have to deny being a hippy, and call you a fuck-stick out of principle.
It's nice to see how Slashdot's libertarian groupthink does a complete protectionist flipover when it's the IT jobs on the line. This is the competition, stupid! Work harder and shut up.
I would really like to see a guy run against Obama in 2012 on the premise of reclaiming our outsourced jobs, canceling all worker visas, banning of outsourcing, banning of multinational corporations, and fighting illegal immigration with the greater enthusiasm than drugs and terrorism.
And I would like to see which corporation would fund his campaign.
The fact is, the people of the US were better off when we were mostly isolationist [...]
You don't get it, do you? It's not about the people, it's about the money. People with money are better off with illegal people around whom they can hire at slave-like conditions. That brings down the wage level of the entire market. You, sir, count nothing because you don't have enough money, and that is a fault. Don't like it? Move to Canada, hippie.
(This post could contain traces of irony. And nuts.)
I refuse to align myself with a single political or economic ideology, I am merely commenting on the facts. Every single 1st world citizen that is forced to compete with 3rd world laborers, is disadvantaged from birth. This is entirely the fault of the government. You may be correct that it's about greed and money. I can't argue against that.
The fact is, the people of the US were better off when we were mostly isolationist and had extremely limited foreign trade partners. We were certainly better off before our government let our corporations sell us out to cheap 3rd world labor.
If you look at the numbers, that's just not true. For example, the census bureau has per capita money income data here:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/incpertoc.html
Look at the first one - you can see that between 1967 & 2008 per capita money income, adjusted to 2008 dollars, doubled. And the years leading up to 1967 were ones of unprecedented growth in the US. The fact is, the people of the US would be much worse off if we were "mostly isolationist" and limited our trade.
Thanks for corroborating my stance that we can sustain growth as isolationists.
But seriously, you want to turn the USA into an isolated state like North Korea just so you don't have to compete for employment. And you haven't thought it through very well: protectionism works both ways. Cut yourself off from the world, and US companies won't be able to outsource any of their products. They'll have no option but to move their entire operations outside of the US, then you won't have any jobs at all.
If they move their company outside of the US, they might lose all their US customers as a result. I'm not sure if you heard the news, but the US consumes a lot.
Maybe if we had a president that said he was going to do something he could actually do, this wouldn't be a problem at all. The president's job isn't to create jobs, and I feel bad for all of you that voted for Obama because you thought he was going to change the country into a fully employed working class with free healthcare.
One of the biggest crocks of shit I've heard these holier than thou politicians say repeatedly, is that they are going to use our tax money to create jobs. Jobs that our very own government let our corporations outsource to India, Mexico, and China. I'm not sure that the term outsource fully matches with importing temporary H-1B visa immigrants to take our jobs, but I see it as part of the same problem.
I would really like to see a guy run against Obama in 2012 on the premise of reclaiming our outsourced jobs, canceling all worker visas, banning of outsourcing, banning of multinational corporations, and fighting illegal immigration with the greater enthusiasm than drugs and terrorism.
The fact is, the people of the US were better off when we were mostly isolationist and had extremely limited foreign trade partners. We were certainly better off before our government let our corporations sell us out to cheap 3rd world labor.
Well, that site you posted is suspiciously missing screenies of Trumpet Winsock, and Netscape in the 'internet applications' section. Maybe I was just an 'advanced' user back then...
We'll have to agree to disagree on interpretation of her statement, then.
I completely understand and agree with your opinion if she had said "I want to kill him" that this is simply an expression of desire and not intent, and I'd be totally on board with your "Minority Report" comparison.
However, she used the words "looking forward to", not "want to", in her first post. To me, that crosses the line between desire and intent.
In order to make it an intent for murder, of course, you have to look at both of her posts, and I agree that this is a bit more of a stretch, but looks like a pretty reasonable conclusion for someone to make.
I think it's completely unreasonable, and I have discussed the issue with many locals who feel the same way. I have serious doubts over the authenticity of the concerns supposedly held by Professor Dipshit. I question the motives of a Professor that visits a students blog for any other reason besides schoolwork.
This story surfaced and subsided faster than I can say "First Amendment Rights violation". I feel that the totalitarian european influence was made rather apparent by the all the fake fear. Growing up here in the state in which this happened, I've made a good deal of actual threats on people's lives in my short lifespan. In writing, and in public. Never once have I been banned from school or harassed by the police for exercising this right, and I know what I've said in the past is FAR worse than what this poor girl wrote on Facebook.
Somehow, I believe the studio will twist this story to sound more like "See! Piracy is causing us to lose money!"
As in "It may have been DRM which caused us to lose money in Germany, but it was only needed because of piracy" or something similar.
This despite them putting in the DRM, and despite them generating $10B revenue in 2009.
A small part of 2009, since the movie didn't come out on the 1st of January 2009.
I'm not sure what you mean by your last statement. In the USA, revenue generated in 2009 is reported as revenue generated in 2009. Hollywood movie studios made $10B this year, despite all their crying and whining about piracy. This is a clear case of having your cake and eating it too, IMHO. Criminalize people that would never pay you for your work in the first place, rape everyone else that would under false pretenses.
A statement of intent is not a thought, it's a threat. There's a difference there.
Agreed, it's questionable whether this was a credible statement of intent, and intent is not a crime. So I agree that she hasn't committed a crime.
If she had, she'd have been charged with one. Instead, she made threats, and was barred from the school as a result.
No. You are completely wrong. Saying I want to do something is not a threat.
threat:
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.
Saying: "I want to kill you" is not a threat, because it's not a declaration of intent. Saying: "I am going to kill you" is a threat, because it's declaring the intent to kill. People just need to grow a spine and stop making up reasons to be scared.
Sure, she's got a right to freedom of speech. She was never arrested or charged with a crime. But the university staff is also free to say, "I don't want to be around that crazy bitch and a bunch of knives." Enrollment is a privilege, not a right.
Being free to say what you want doesn't mean you always should. And yes, she never outright said she was going to do anything, but she sure as hell was hinting at it. Are you really going to argue semantics on warning signs? This may not have been a case of premeditation (Though we don't -really- know either way for sure, do we?) but as soon as she posted those thoughts publicly (hundreds of people on Facebook is in no way private) she made it someone else's problem.
You have the right to express yourself, but everyone else also has the right to not want to have anything to do with you if you seem sufficiently fucked up.
Doctors are sufficiently fucked up. They like to look inside bodies. Morticians are sufficiently fucked up. They like to look inside dead bodies. Everyone is fucked up. Everyone likes to do something that someone else thinks is fucked up.
I have the right to say whatever I want, granted to me by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the USA. What the U of M doesn't have is the right to discriminate against anyone based on the expression of that 1st Amendment right, regardless of you or anyone else thinking she is "a crazy bitch." Your right to discriminate against her is non-existent, so anyone doing so is obviously in the wrong.
I fucking DARE you to come harass me over this post. I FUCKING DARE YOU.
OK, but at least make your posts paint the same picture you are comparing them to...
"I am thinking about stabbing the U of M Campus Police, as well as the Professor Dipshit that called them about this."
Now follow that up with a post that says you are "looking forward to my Campus Police therapy at 10AM tomorrow morning using a large knife to the throat followed shortly by some Dipshit Therapy and I really hope people give me a lot of room because I have a severe amount of aggression I am bringing to the therapy."
Then start talking about how you might dispose of the bodies.
It's not that she said she was thinking about it. She said she was LOOKING FORWARD to it. Very large difference between "I'd like to" and "I'm looking forward to"
The school admins and the police may have overreacted, that's arguable, but they were not reacting to a thought. They were reacting to a statement of intent.
Still a thought crime. A real crime isn't a crime until an illegal action has been committed. Saying I want to stab someone, kill someone, dispose of bodies, is irrelevant unless someone has actually been stabbed, killed, and their body disposed of.
Posting under the Slashdot alias, one Jacob Sims, aka ground.zero.612, made inflammatory remarks to the University of Minnesota Campus Police and a certain "Professor Dipshit." Following this, Mr. Sims was found bound and gagged, bent over a park bench with a sign hanging about his neck stating: "Free ride for the po-po."
We would post photos, but... well, please think of the children.
If you get as specific as she did over who, where, when, and how, then yeah. You just might get checked out.
Course they'll probably realize that you're just some guy making kneejerk reaction about kneejerk reactions. Funny how this thread has been full of pots shouting angrily against kettles for their perceived blackness.
I read her quotes on the local paper's website. They say nothing about actually doing anything. They express a want. A want of something is not the same as doing a something. This is not a kneejerk reaction to a kneejerk reaction. This is a justified questioning of my local society's reaction to a non-issue.
As a citizen of the United States of America, I think the U of M is trampling this girl's First Amendment right to free speech. As a human being I think it's fucking absurd to twist her words, take them out of context, and actually be fearful of her. As a cynic, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this Professor Dipshit was pretending to be scared, or one of those people with mental issues that cause them to be pessimistic and fearful of everything in life.
When I was in school, the school had no authority over me outside of school hours and off school property. I liked it that way. You people that are making this into an issue are a severe detriment to our society, and I harbor ill will toward you all.
The United States is a country that has gone through at least 2 shooting rampages by students, one of which took place at a university.
Anyone who believes that even vaguely credible threats involving students or faculty on school grounds will not be investigated is simply too naive or stupid to bother with.
You are an idiot. This student was banned before the results of the investigation were in.
So, thinking about committing a crime is now the same as actually committing a crime?
I'm NOT posting anonymously because I live in Minnesota, and I'm going to say "I am thinking about stabbing the U of M Campus Police, as well as the Professor Dipshit that called them about this."
I fucking DARE you to come harass me over this post. I FUCKING DARE YOU.
So... Now WOL not only tells my PC to turn on, but it also connects my PC to a remote server and activates some software package for me too? When did WOL get the ability to activate software for me after it turns my PC on? I didn't know it did this. Even so, the BIOS itself is not remote, and it (BIOS) is not communicating with a remote server to activate any of my software after it boots my PC.
Maybe next time RTFS like I previously suggested. Or dare I suggest RTFA.
In the UK, we've got different classes of licences as well. See here for classes of vehicles in the UK. (As an aside, it can be most annoying - for example, anyone who passes their driving test before 1st Jan 1997 gets Class C1 on their licence automatically, and those who passes on or after 1st Jan 1997 must take a test to get Class C1. I passed my test in August 1997 so I keep having to ask my Dad to drive Class C1 vehicles for me every time I move house)
Also, licence plates for vehicles in the UK is linked to the car, not the driver. When a car is sold in the UK, it's assigned a licence plate which stays with the car until it's crushed, then the licence plate is never re-used (unless brought by a rich person decades in the future). For example, my first car had "F564 SLO" (now crushed), my second car had "K380 AUR" and so on - the registration year and location is stored in the plate too, so it wouldn't make sense to move plates. So, nice idea, shame it won't work in the UK.
But like someone else said, if someone is caught drink driving, they lose their licence. Simple.
Our plates here (US) stay with the car as well. The difference being that every 7yrs (at least in my state) we must receive new plates. So, I think it still might be able to work for you guys too.
Slashdot Mirror
reclaiming our outsourced jobs, canceling all worker visas, banning of outsourcing, banning of multinational corporations, and fighting illegal immigration with the greater enthusiasm than drugs and terrorism.
That would be so fun...
Watching the states committing economic suicide, becoming unable to sell below any other country's prices or being forced to cut its entire workforce's salaries to china ranges.
Completely unsubstantiated bullshit. You obviously know nothing of the history of the USA's economy and foreign trade policy.
You do realize that your 200 dollar computers will start costing $800 if you ban outsourcing to China, right? And US exports will fall by about 90% because Canada and Europe will start making their own stuff with Chinese labor? And some of the Chinese workers, no longer "exploited" by multinationals, will go back to 15 hours a day subsistence farming in the hot sun?
Wait what? The US exports something other than food? I can't possibly imagine what that could other than jobs... care to enlighten us?
You fail to fully appreciate the buying power that is the American consumer.
I should add, that is the opposite of how it should be. The reality should be that being born in a 3rd world country should put you at a disadvantage to people like myself, born in a 1st world country.
You, sir, count nothing because you don't have enough money, and that is a fault. Don't like it? Move to Canada, hippie.
I actually do count. Not because I actually have a lot of money (and that is my fault because I work hard and have an eagle eye for opportunity), but because I'm a human being. Just to sink to your level, I'll have to deny being a hippy, and call you a fuck-stick out of principle.
It's nice to see how Slashdot's libertarian groupthink does a complete protectionist flipover when it's the IT jobs on the line. This is the competition, stupid! Work harder and shut up.
And I would like to see which corporation would fund his campaign.
You don't get it, do you? It's not about the people, it's about the money. People with money are better off with illegal people around whom they can hire at slave-like conditions. That brings down the wage level of the entire market. You, sir, count nothing because you don't have enough money, and that is a fault. Don't like it? Move to Canada, hippie.
(This post could contain traces of irony. And nuts.)
I refuse to align myself with a single political or economic ideology, I am merely commenting on the facts. Every single 1st world citizen that is forced to compete with 3rd world laborers, is disadvantaged from birth. This is entirely the fault of the government. You may be correct that it's about greed and money. I can't argue against that.
The fact is, the people of the US were better off when we were mostly isolationist and had extremely limited foreign trade partners. We were certainly better off before our government let our corporations sell us out to cheap 3rd world labor.
If you look at the numbers, that's just not true. For example, the census bureau has per capita money income data here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/incpertoc.html Look at the first one - you can see that between 1967 & 2008 per capita money income, adjusted to 2008 dollars, doubled. And the years leading up to 1967 were ones of unprecedented growth in the US. The fact is, the people of the US would be much worse off if we were "mostly isolationist" and limited our trade.
Thanks for corroborating my stance that we can sustain growth as isolationists.
DEY TOOK OUR JERBS!!!
But seriously, you want to turn the USA into an isolated state like North Korea just so you don't have to compete for employment. And you haven't thought it through very well: protectionism works both ways. Cut yourself off from the world, and US companies won't be able to outsource any of their products. They'll have no option but to move their entire operations outside of the US, then you won't have any jobs at all.
If they move their company outside of the US, they might lose all their US customers as a result. I'm not sure if you heard the news, but the US consumes a lot.
Maybe if we had a president that said he was going to do something he could actually do, this wouldn't be a problem at all. The president's job isn't to create jobs, and I feel bad for all of you that voted for Obama because you thought he was going to change the country into a fully employed working class with free healthcare.
One of the biggest crocks of shit I've heard these holier than thou politicians say repeatedly, is that they are going to use our tax money to create jobs. Jobs that our very own government let our corporations outsource to India, Mexico, and China. I'm not sure that the term outsource fully matches with importing temporary H-1B visa immigrants to take our jobs, but I see it as part of the same problem.
I would really like to see a guy run against Obama in 2012 on the premise of reclaiming our outsourced jobs, canceling all worker visas, banning of outsourcing, banning of multinational corporations, and fighting illegal immigration with the greater enthusiasm than drugs and terrorism.
The fact is, the people of the US were better off when we were mostly isolationist and had extremely limited foreign trade partners. We were certainly better off before our government let our corporations sell us out to cheap 3rd world labor.
Your Trumpet Winsock and Netscape weren't third party apps like mine? Wow, you really were an advanced user!
And? Did you have a point? Because I can see where you tried to go and stopped, and I have a car analogy for you if you really had a point.
That's easy: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win31
Well, that site you posted is suspiciously missing screenies of Trumpet Winsock, and Netscape in the 'internet applications' section. Maybe I was just an 'advanced' user back then...
Isn't that kind of like "You make me do this to you! Why do you keep making me hit you!?"
Not denying that they did / would say that. I just thought it was funny noticing the parallels there.
Yes! Exactly!
We'll have to agree to disagree on interpretation of her statement, then.
I completely understand and agree with your opinion if she had said "I want to kill him" that this is simply an expression of desire and not intent, and I'd be totally on board with your "Minority Report" comparison.
However, she used the words "looking forward to", not "want to", in her first post. To me, that crosses the line between desire and intent.
In order to make it an intent for murder, of course, you have to look at both of her posts, and I agree that this is a bit more of a stretch, but looks like a pretty reasonable conclusion for someone to make.
I think it's completely unreasonable, and I have discussed the issue with many locals who feel the same way. I have serious doubts over the authenticity of the concerns supposedly held by Professor Dipshit. I question the motives of a Professor that visits a students blog for any other reason besides schoolwork.
This story surfaced and subsided faster than I can say "First Amendment Rights violation". I feel that the totalitarian european influence was made rather apparent by the all the fake fear. Growing up here in the state in which this happened, I've made a good deal of actual threats on people's lives in my short lifespan. In writing, and in public. Never once have I been banned from school or harassed by the police for exercising this right, and I know what I've said in the past is FAR worse than what this poor girl wrote on Facebook.
Somehow, I believe the studio will twist this story to sound more like "See! Piracy is causing us to lose money!" As in "It may have been DRM which caused us to lose money in Germany, but it was only needed because of piracy" or something similar. This despite them putting in the DRM, and despite them generating $10B revenue in 2009. A small part of 2009, since the movie didn't come out on the 1st of January 2009.
I'm not sure what you mean by your last statement. In the USA, revenue generated in 2009 is reported as revenue generated in 2009. Hollywood movie studios made $10B this year, despite all their crying and whining about piracy. This is a clear case of having your cake and eating it too, IMHO. Criminalize people that would never pay you for your work in the first place, rape everyone else that would under false pretenses.
Somehow, I believe the studio will twist this story to sound more like "See! Piracy is causing us to lose money!"
This despite them putting in the DRM, and despite them generating $10B revenue in 2009.
A statement of intent is not a thought, it's a threat. There's a difference there.
Agreed, it's questionable whether this was a credible statement of intent, and intent is not a crime. So I agree that she hasn't committed a crime.
If she had, she'd have been charged with one. Instead, she made threats, and was barred from the school as a result.
No. You are completely wrong. Saying I want to do something is not a threat.
threat: 1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment.
Saying: "I want to kill you" is not a threat, because it's not a declaration of intent. Saying: "I am going to kill you" is a threat, because it's declaring the intent to kill. People just need to grow a spine and stop making up reasons to be scared.
Sure, she's got a right to freedom of speech. She was never arrested or charged with a crime. But the university staff is also free to say, "I don't want to be around that crazy bitch and a bunch of knives." Enrollment is a privilege, not a right.
Being free to say what you want doesn't mean you always should. And yes, she never outright said she was going to do anything, but she sure as hell was hinting at it. Are you really going to argue semantics on warning signs? This may not have been a case of premeditation (Though we don't -really- know either way for sure, do we?) but as soon as she posted those thoughts publicly (hundreds of people on Facebook is in no way private) she made it someone else's problem.
You have the right to express yourself, but everyone else also has the right to not want to have anything to do with you if you seem sufficiently fucked up.
Doctors are sufficiently fucked up. They like to look inside bodies. Morticians are sufficiently fucked up. They like to look inside dead bodies. Everyone is fucked up. Everyone likes to do something that someone else thinks is fucked up.
I have the right to say whatever I want, granted to me by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the USA. What the U of M doesn't have is the right to discriminate against anyone based on the expression of that 1st Amendment right, regardless of you or anyone else thinking she is "a crazy bitch." Your right to discriminate against her is non-existent, so anyone doing so is obviously in the wrong.
I fucking DARE you to come harass me over this post. I FUCKING DARE YOU.
OK, but at least make your posts paint the same picture you are comparing them to...
"I am thinking about stabbing the U of M Campus Police, as well as the Professor Dipshit that called them about this."
Now follow that up with a post that says you are "looking forward to my Campus Police therapy at 10AM tomorrow morning using a large knife to the throat followed shortly by some Dipshit Therapy and I really hope people give me a lot of room because I have a severe amount of aggression I am bringing to the therapy."
Then start talking about how you might dispose of the bodies.
It's not that she said she was thinking about it. She said she was LOOKING FORWARD to it. Very large difference between "I'd like to" and "I'm looking forward to"
The school admins and the police may have overreacted, that's arguable, but they were not reacting to a thought. They were reacting to a statement of intent.
Still a thought crime. A real crime isn't a crime until an illegal action has been committed. Saying I want to stab someone, kill someone, dispose of bodies, is irrelevant unless someone has actually been stabbed, killed, and their body disposed of.
News @ 11:
BREAKING NEWS:
Posting under the Slashdot alias, one Jacob Sims, aka ground.zero.612, made inflammatory remarks to the University of Minnesota Campus Police and a certain "Professor Dipshit." Following this, Mr. Sims was found bound and gagged, bent over a park bench with a sign hanging about his neck stating: "Free ride for the po-po." We would post photos, but... well, please think of the children.
I LOL'd IRL.
If you get as specific as she did over who, where, when, and how, then yeah. You just might get checked out.
Course they'll probably realize that you're just some guy making kneejerk reaction about kneejerk reactions. Funny how this thread has been full of pots shouting angrily against kettles for their perceived blackness.
I read her quotes on the local paper's website. They say nothing about actually doing anything. They express a want. A want of something is not the same as doing a something. This is not a kneejerk reaction to a kneejerk reaction. This is a justified questioning of my local society's reaction to a non-issue.
As a citizen of the United States of America, I think the U of M is trampling this girl's First Amendment right to free speech. As a human being I think it's fucking absurd to twist her words, take them out of context, and actually be fearful of her. As a cynic, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this Professor Dipshit was pretending to be scared, or one of those people with mental issues that cause them to be pessimistic and fearful of everything in life.
When I was in school, the school had no authority over me outside of school hours and off school property. I liked it that way. You people that are making this into an issue are a severe detriment to our society, and I harbor ill will toward you all.
You are an idiot. Truly.
The United States is a country that has gone through at least 2 shooting rampages by students, one of which took place at a university.
Anyone who believes that even vaguely credible threats involving students or faculty on school grounds will not be investigated is simply too naive or stupid to bother with.
You are an idiot. This student was banned before the results of the investigation were in.
Ok, modding my post troll was actually kind of funny heh. ^_^
So, thinking about committing a crime is now the same as actually committing a crime?
I'm NOT posting anonymously because I live in Minnesota, and I'm going to say "I am thinking about stabbing the U of M Campus Police, as well as the Professor Dipshit that called them about this."
I fucking DARE you to come harass me over this post. I FUCKING DARE YOU.
So... Now WOL not only tells my PC to turn on, but it also connects my PC to a remote server and activates some software package for me too? When did WOL get the ability to activate software for me after it turns my PC on? I didn't know it did this. Even so, the BIOS itself is not remote, and it (BIOS) is not communicating with a remote server to activate any of my software after it boots my PC.
Maybe next time RTFS like I previously suggested. Or dare I suggest RTFA.
Don't 99.9% of men attack women's puters? Where's the story here?
Jeez at least RTFS. How remote is a PC BIOS when it's always local to the PC it's booting? My answer: not very.
In the UK, we've got different classes of licences as well. See here for classes of vehicles in the UK. (As an aside, it can be most annoying - for example, anyone who passes their driving test before 1st Jan 1997 gets Class C1 on their licence automatically, and those who passes on or after 1st Jan 1997 must take a test to get Class C1. I passed my test in August 1997 so I keep having to ask my Dad to drive Class C1 vehicles for me every time I move house)
Also, licence plates for vehicles in the UK is linked to the car, not the driver. When a car is sold in the UK, it's assigned a licence plate which stays with the car until it's crushed, then the licence plate is never re-used (unless brought by a rich person decades in the future). For example, my first car had "F564 SLO" (now crushed), my second car had "K380 AUR" and so on - the registration year and location is stored in the plate too, so it wouldn't make sense to move plates. So, nice idea, shame it won't work in the UK.
But like someone else said, if someone is caught drink driving, they lose their licence. Simple.
Our plates here (US) stay with the car as well. The difference being that every 7yrs (at least in my state) we must receive new plates. So, I think it still might be able to work for you guys too.