h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I find myself agreeing with well made points on both sides of this debate.

Being a cynic, I would argue that we have so many laws because we have so many MPs desperate to justify themselves to their constituencies.

"Being a cynic, I would argue that we have so many laws because we have so many MPs desperate to justify themselves to their constituencies."

Personally, I think we have so many laws because it's easier to introduc e new legislation rather than ammend or change the legislation that stands. Most of the time, all that needs changed is the current law and/or work-culture that is causing the problems/loopholes that exist but government tends to simply add more laws on top of what already exists.

Changing laws isn't as sexy as making new ones.

Zagreb, you seem to be becoming a self-parody.

"Don't patronise me. ... You simply insinuate that the big bad State is out to get me even though it isn't. ... Doesn't stop immature people whose politics are stuck in the union bar fantasising about living in Nazi Germany, though."

Do you even read what you write before you post?

Dogster, do you?

Usually, yes. Why? Are you going to go and find something stupid I've written?

>You may also like to consider that once arrested a person may be fingerprinted, photographed, and a sample of their dna taken, by oral swab - by force if necessary. This information is retained, regardless of the person's innocence or otherwise.<

Wrong. If found not guilty or not charged, the Police must BY LAW destroy all fingerprint, photos and DNA/Forensdic samples. You have the right to attend the station in order to view the destruction, if you wish.

>Me and 3 of my mates can complain to a court about you, and get an ASBO preventing you from walking near my house. No evidence required - word of mouth and rumour is enough. Then if you break that ASBO you can go to jail for up to 5 years. Without ever having broken the law.<

Wrong. The only people who can apply to the courts for an ASBO are the relevant prosecuting aurthorities - the Police, the CPS or the Local Council. Even Sky One can get that right in one of their 'documentaries'.

Personally, I'd be able to take the idea of our civil liberties being eroded if people told the truth when they were complaining about it.

You know, it seems like it happens with depressing frequency that Blues Shark has to correct people regarding ASBO's and civil liberties...it's gotten to the point where I (not from the UK) am going to start answering these questions for him, b/c I've seen the answer so many times...

I guess you can talk till you "Blue" in the face and no one will listen sometimes...

What can I say, Arnie? People often seem to be more fond of their own opinions than to acknowledge the facts presented to them by those who actually know what they are talking about.


az

Blues,

"Wrong. If found not guilty or not charged, the Police must BY LAW destroy all fingerprint, photos and DNA/Forensdic samples. You have the right to attend the station in order to view the destruction, if you wish."

Is this a law that has changed recently? If so could you provide a link, because I found this:

"Since April 2004, the police in England and Wales have been able to take DNA samples without consent from anyone arrested on suspicion of any recordable offence. Recordable offences include begging, being drunk and disorderly and taking part in an illegal demonstration. Both DNA profiles (the string of numbers used for identification purposes) and DNA samples (which contain unlimited genetic information), are kept permanently, even if the person arrested is never charged or is acquitted."

(from genewatch uk: http://www.genewatch.org/sub.shtml?als%5Bcid%5D=539478 )

and:

"With almost 3 million samples, Britain's DNA database is the largest in the world, as police are allowed to retain DNA from anyone arrested whether or not they are found guilty of a crime."

(from the Observer, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1821676,00.html )

If Blues is constantly having to correct people about basic legal procedures, perhaps the question should be "Why do people have this perception?". Is it poor journalism misrepresenting the facts?

"You know, it seems like it happens with depressing frequency that Blues Shark has to correct people regarding ASBO's and civil liberties...it's gotten to the point where I (not from the UK) am going to start answering these questions for him, b/c I've seen the answer so many times..."

The internet is a terrible place for disinformation, though, and people have a habit of passing on anything that confirms their prejudices without bothering to check the facts first.

Case in point: Several forums on various website on various topics have recently been spammed by 9/11 conspiracy wonks repeating a raft of "facts" they've cribbed from their pet websites. These "facts" are nothing of the sort and have had to be repeatedly refuted by scientists, engineers and the like. The nonsense doesn't go away, it keeps on coming and for every nine people who laugh it off, there's one who believes it (because he/she wants to) and passes it on.

As another example: think of all the urban myths you've heard.

"If Blues is constantly having to correct people about basic legal procedures, perhaps the question should be "Why do people have this perception?". Is it poor journalism misrepresenting the facts?"

It's because the minutae of British law isn't of interest to most people and so they don't know much about it and don't bother looking into it.

On the other hand, people are only too happy to pass-on any old nonsense about what Big Government is up to without bothering to check the fact first.

Personally, I find that the Blues and these forums brings the minutae of British Law to life.

Blues is famous for his minutae

I'm sure that's the sort of innuendo that only translates if your mind is already thoroughly filled with dirty thoughts.

Guilty as charged. Where do I get my HooToo Asbo?

Abrupt topic drift warning, and rash prediction, (anyone else care to have a flutter?)

John Reid to become next PM and beat man for all seasons Cameron at next election.

Although Blair praised Brown today in his speech, I think all that did was make him look like the best no.2 of all time. And Blair made much of the terrorist threat we all have to face up to, and I reckon Joe Public agrees. (Not many people in Britain really care about global warming at present. I mean I ask you we've always been famed for our rainy summers, and we've just had the hottest July and September on record. And yes it's been lovely). So step forward John Reid. The last thing Joe Public wants is someone known for scheeming and insincerity, so if the Labour Part has any sense they'll elect John. Hard, tough, almost Churchillian; he'll wipe the floor with that pretend bicycling Tory, David Cameron. I reckon Blair will delay his departure as long as possible to ensure a head of steam can build up for someone else.

Actually it would amuse me immensly for a balding older man to win a general election. The Tories tried two of them before opting for a Blair clone. I think the appetite for another Maggie in times of 'war' and fears over being swamped by foreigners, is in the air. The economy seems fairly healthy, so that's not really an issue.

Go Robocop!

"If someone breaks that law then the police have to act. It seems absurd to arrest someone on a single-person demo but the law has to stand - the police can't say "well, we'll make an exception for this". They have to carry it out as read."

Err, no. The police have wide discretion about what laws they choose to enforce. They don't have the manpower to enforce the lot of them, so they draw up priorities. Why did the police think that a woman reading a list of names was a priority? One suspects political pressure.

TRiG.

>Is this a law that has changed recently? If so could you provide a link<

No9, and no. There is a life outside the internet, and information sources other than the web.

The Court of Appeal have made it very plain, by releasing several offenders, that DNA held illegally on the database is not to be considered as evidence.

In effect it is a moor point as to whether they keep your DNA or not - what they can't do is use it to form the basis of a prosecution against you, because it is illegally held.

And guess what, you'll just have to take my word for it, just as if we were down the pub, or do you ask everyone there to produce links as well?