kallend 2,148 #26 February 2, 2007 QuoteQuite a few are too busy bashing the US, and keeping the self imposed belief of superiority to take notice. IMO. You might want to check on the confiscation rules in the USA before gloating.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #27 February 2, 2007 QuoteIt's called "copyright law". It's illegal to quote an entire story - you can only quote a portion, for purposes of discussion. I posted the first part, as is, which introduces the issue. Which also makes it sound very inflammatory. You further completely neglect to even mention that the motivation was something completely different then what was implied with your "selective quote". You could have added another small quote, showing what the actual motivation was/is. You would still stay within copyright laws and you would have been quite a bit more "honest". In short, we call that cherry picking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #28 February 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt's called "copyright law". It's illegal to quote an entire story - you can only quote a portion, for purposes of discussion. I posted the first part, as is, which introduces the issue. Which also makes it sound very inflammatory. You further completely neglect to even mention that the motivation was something completely different then what was implied with your "selective quote". You could have added another small quote, showing what the actual motivation was/is. You would still stay within copyright laws and you would have been quite a bit more "honest". In short, we call that cherry picking. Blah blah blah. I provided the reference to the original source for the story, so it can hardly be said that I was trying to hide something. If you didn't like the introduction, which I quoted as is, your complaint is with the reporter, not me. You got to say your piece in response, so quit your incessant whining. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #29 February 2, 2007 John. As has been pointed out to you. The article was incorrect or misleading. Certainly the title was. Interested to know how you think the police would be able to afford to seize these vehicle and where they would store them all. You can in the UK, infact, stop any car without it having commited a traffic offence for the purpose of 'checking documents'. If upon checking these documents you find out someone has no insurance (and therefore shouldnt be on a road anyway) then it would be appropriate to remove the vehicle off the highway and there are powers to do that. Power to seize a vehicle for failing to wear a seatbelt doesnt exist and wouldn't be legal due to the Human Rights Act. Any action taken by the police must be justified, reasonable, proportionate and neccesary to the offence. This clearly isnt and the European Convention for Human Rights would have a field day with this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #30 February 2, 2007 QuoteIf upon checking these documents you find out someone has no insurance (and therefore shouldnt be on a road anyway) then it would be appropriate to remove the vehicle off the highway and there are powers to do that. I wish they would do that more often - its these c***s who put our premiums up...Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #31 February 2, 2007 QuoteInterested to know how you think the police would be able to afford to seize these vehicle and where they would store them all. Well, they've got 1,800 of them so far, just in a small test area. So they're obviously doing okay with that. And the whole thing can be self-fulfilling too, as seized cars are auctioned off to pay for the storage yard for others. The next thing you know, you have a highly profitable business enterprise, which encourages the seizing of yet more cars. QuoteYou can in the UK, infact, stop any car without it having commited a traffic offence for the purpose of 'checking documents'. Well, that makes things in England even worse than I thought. The 4th Amendment in the U.S. says that the police have to leave you alone, unless you're actually doing something wrong. And I like it that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #32 February 3, 2007 Quote QuoteYou can in the UK, infact, stop any car without it having commited a traffic offence for the purpose of 'checking documents'. Well, that makes things in England even worse than I thought. The 4th Amendment in the U.S. says that the police have to leave you alone, unless you're actually doing something wrong. And I like it that way. If you're driving without a licence or insurance, you *ARE* doing something wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 February 3, 2007 QuoteYou can in the UK, infact, stop any car without it having commited a traffic offence for the purpose of 'checking documents'. If upon checking these documents you find out someone has no insurance (and therefore shouldnt be on a road anyway) then it would be appropriate to remove the vehicle off the highway and there are powers to do that. Ouch... and I thought drunk driving checkpoints were bad...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
