Safe Speed Forums

I'd agree with that - more so since in the cases i've seen going to ECHR they "seemed "(although it probably only seems so ) to take delight in reversing any decision the UK govt made. Could this be a change of direction since this Govt has allowed inroads into the EU constitution by the back door??

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Oh I thinkwe all knew it would lose.

But then so many losses in the old GDR. That wall disintegrated more by word of mouth dissent.

To my mind anything possible on that basis. A handful started that rebellion. It's human nature. You cannot impose restriction on the effects of the "apple" or "Pandora's Box" which might have released the per legend. But it also released endeavour, curiosity, desire to survive no matter what. if you wish to believe in the legends of course But whatever.. mankind has a spirit of independence and responsibility which will rail against straitjjackets and nonsense which precludes justice and common sense .. eventually.

So one loss. Think positive. Lots of possibles and lots of folk out there who will wake from apathetic slumber to political aggression. It does happen. People are not "sheep" after all. They want safety. They want justice. They want humans and not robots

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

I didn't. I thought it was a winner, and easily so. I'm quite deeply shocked at the verdict actually.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Ditto. Even taking politics into account I thought that ECHR would preserve the rights.

That's probably because you're a trusting soul, whereas I lost all trust in the judicial/political system some 20 years ago.
You see, each part is dependent upon the other part/s. The police are dependent on the lawbreakers The judicial system could not exist in a nation of people who believed in law, and obeyed it. So, we have laws, and new laws, and the legal system. Even "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" has long been watered down to mean "guilty until proven innocent". and then it just means "got away with it". The politicians, ably assisted by the press (another arm of control), have long pursuaded the public that a not guilty verdict really means "got away with it". How many times have you read "The police stated that after the not guilty verdict they are not looking for anyone else and the case will not be reopened" (ie: "he was guilty, but what the heck")

I refer you back to my basic stance on democracy: We elect the people who lead the state, which itself is run by nonelected persons responsible only to themselves. We elect another party/person, but the system is run by the same people, from one decade to the next. Lets look at the control thing;
How long could you function without money ?
Pensions and benefits are paid by transfer now, wages and salaries the same. So, what if the bank system was shut down ?
It is very strange that people think they run their own lives, but how little control really exists from the personal viewpoint. And how easy it would be for the state to shut down your life ?

But the case should be re-opened und another slant or seek out for fresh evidence. If it fail in first place - then perhaps they drop a stitch. If you knit anything, you know what happen if you drop stitch... it unravels.

Perhaps that why Idris say he fight on.




Ja .. The elusive "THEM". We do not know who "THEY" are. Our only clue? They perhaps read und feed the Grauniad with "THEIR" policies knowing that it kindle support from the "pseudo-intellectuals" wot read it. (Their spelling on a certain forum? I think actually worse than mine. Impossible! )



You know both the Nazis & Stasis did that to the people they persecuted relentlessly. In Nazi Germany for example Jews bank accounts/assets frozen. Actually, I think the Law provides for the bank account/assets of suspected Mr Big Criminal to be frozen.

But you are right. We do not have the controls we think we have over our lives. I will mourn the demise of the cheque book. I rather enjoy handwriting out a cheque with a proper fountain pen after all.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

[BTW, this is not off-topic as I see it - it attempts to speak to the hypocrisy found here (and elsewhere) on the topic of "human rights"]

Surely we should all live by a code?

I don't agree with speed camera enforcement in the way it is handled. I regard the right to silence as absolute.

However, why should the ECHR be wrong? Why should "that club" (the club of car users) be different to "this club" (SafeSpeed)?

Membership of SS is a voluntary act, and is subject to certain restrictions (including the restraint of free speech and freedom of expression, the lack of ability to question those in authority). Why should that differ from car ownership (which is, like SS membership, not a human right).

By all means, we should all lobby MPs to change the law, perhaps try disobedience or other means, but people really can't complain that the rules of "that club" are unfair whilst at least not starting a petition for the rules of "this club" to be open, transparent and subject to question, comment and lobbying.

Tune in next week for "sorry, your driving licence has been suspended after no hearing and no notice due to your saying something unpleasant to a passing motorist within earshot of a police officer." If you don't like that, lobby for a system of fair trials here on SS. You can agree with one, or the other, but not both.

So, I join the "club" of murderers. There are few rules. I still have a right to silence.

I have a right to silence on this forum. I do not have to post.

The main point in my mind is does the act of driving a car override the fundamental right to silence under European law? If so, then any voluntary act undertaken by the citizen can be argued to have this same dispensation and the ECHR is useless.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

What a load of bollocks. Are you a troll? Or mapaton violating the suspension?

No one has been banned from here ever for their views. People are banned for their bad behaviour when necessary.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Paul, mayhaps his/her nom-de-plume is his/her birthdate?

Does the post from 15796 violate the Forum rules?

It may well be "b******s" but what's the argument against what is said?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I suspect this may have been part of the deal to stop the UK opting out of the human rights legislation in the new constitution that they are calling a treaty.

didn't expect any other result, I guess direct action is the only thing they listen too

Along the lines of my previous post, but was thinking more of the items sneaked through could possibly have been this .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Wonder if this was one of the "red lines" that Tony Bliar was harping on about.

Cynics? Us? Shurley shome mishtake.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

Suspension from a private web forum is not a criminal penalty applied by the government. Being fined or banned from driving is. The relevant section of the ECHR applies to legal proceedings brought by governments, i.e. criminal proceedings. It also, incidentally, does not allow for "opt outs" for certain groups, nor does it allow for special exceptions for individual crimes.

IMO you are correct that the ECHR does not allow for "opt-outs". However, how does this then square with the court ruling which appears to say (and I stand to be corrected on this) that by driving a car you voluntarily accept additional local laws which override your rights under the convention?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I don't think it does square with it: the decision is just contrived special pleading. Why is driving a car special? Why not eating at a restaurant, or going to the beach, or just leaving the house? Are those 'voluntary' things which can opt you away from basic protections?

Do a google search for "ECHR" +"derogation" (Derogation is the partial repeal of a law). An example of where a member state has derogated the the ECHR is:

http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/Speeches ... -terrorism



So it does allow "opt outs" but not for everyday situations.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Hi there. No, neither a troll nor mapaton (whoever s/he is).

My post was to air a point of view and prompt a discussion, which to be fair it seems to have done.

However, since you've called me out on this, I'll respond - in measured tones and with no intention of being a "troll".

The problem, as I see it, is that there is no forum on here for the airing of disagreements over conduct; no "trial" if you will. Of course this is your site, but (IMHO) if you want SS to succeed as a movement of its own then I personally believe you have to allow participation and transparency in the dsiciplining of members.

My belief was that SS was intended to be just that - a movement of real people campaigning against wrongs (perceived or real - that debate can rage on and on). If on the other hand it is a public platform for an individual, and the forums and "community" exist only to provide apparent legitimacy to that platform, then SS is not what I thought (or hoped) it would be.

Of the many reasons for the perceived decline in the freedoms of the British people, going hand in hand with the perceived decline of society, is the overbearing decision-making taken by those in "power" who seek to curtail the freedoms of the individual. The ECHR ruling appears to have gone a step further by enshrining that process in precedent, by taking the stance that not only are freedoms only applicable in certain circumstances, but also that they can be suspended by governments in return for citizens being permitted to do something or other which is not of itself a right.

Many of us here will think that is wrong; a much smaller proportion will be surprised by the ruling, but wrong it still is. However I personally think that any campaign against such abuses must itself by coordinated in a fair manner - and be seen to be so - otherwise the pot is merely accusing the kettle of being the wrong shade of black.

So, back to my point. You may not have suspended somebody for their views, but you have given the impression of suspending somebody for their views or their right to express views (and compounded by that by giving the impression that it was happening because it was a bad day), and have used the power you hold because it is "your club" to supersede any more general right to free speech that person might have in wider society.

[An aside: for what it is worth, in a forum as in life, I don't believe it is appropriate for somebody to be judged on whether they hold an "honestly held belief". This is like the nonsense of a crime of racially-aggravated assault - we can't prosecute people for what is in their heads.]

Therefore I call upon you to open up the governance of the SS forums to a committee elected from amongst its members, with a special forum for the carrying out of "investigations" and "trials" into the conduct of members, and a clear set of rules ("laws" if you like) which are rooted not in opinion ("you seem in my opinion to be a troll", etc.) but in identifiable rights and responsibilities. In short, make the SS forums a better, fairer, more open and transparent place to be than the country as a whole now is.

My 2c (I don’t speak for Paul or the campaign):


Could you show me even one popular forum where such trials/committees are the norm?


I believe this impression, where accepted, was inferred rather than implied.


I see your overall point but I don’t think such a proposed process will aid this forum. Paul can’t waste his time supervising ‘trials’ for every troll that comes along (unfortunately there are quite a few, and one of those has many, many virtual personas). Besides, it would ruin the forum. There will always be some subjectiveness leading to some dispute regardless of the detail level of debate. To borrow from a famous quote: ‘You can appease all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot appease all the people all the time.’
More significantly they’ll always be someone whose ego is too fragile, or someone who will argue the toss, in the way trolls do – so creating a never-ending circle.

I personally reckon Paul has found a good balance of site policy, one of letting a lot slide until the mickey is repeatedly taken, in which case justification of the subsequent action comes easy, hence minimal fuss. (Actually, there is a level of debate between the mods prior to action to ensure even-handedness is applied.)


Contrast this forum with others discussing the same issues but from the opposite end of the spectrum, perhaps then some may realise just how free the SS forums are.