Incessant Chatter...

[Nickerbockers]

Knickerbocker,
I think the 356 is a brilliant bus service, and you are right it normally has a no hassle feeling to it.
but three times i have travelled on it and had trouble with yobs,
it seems to be weekends and holidays, thats why i am all for taking away the pass they use that I pay for!
and making its use for term time only.I have lived around here for over 30 years but i am getting to the point where I am determined I will not be here in this area when I reach retirement.

No way I'll be here in later life, in fact if I'm lucky enough to ever have children, I will NOT be bringing them up around here. I hope to emigrate one day, it's a dream I won't let go of. Imagine London in 10-20 years' time, no way I'm sticking around for that, or letting any children of mine have to grow up in this moral decline!!

[Eagle]

Thomas
You are correct. I would imagine enforcement is a joke.
Why oh Why did Livingstone do this . Not easy to take away what has been given but perhaps Boris may try.

[bensonby]

if people don't like things they see around them why don't they do something to change them? (aside from moaning on a website)


All it takes for evil to triumph &c. &c.



Here's a couple of examples:

http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/speci ... table.html

http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/met_volunteer.html

http://www.streetpastors.co.uk/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/newsdebate/index.html

[nork1]

So, rather than moaning on a website we could:

1) Volunteer to do what we're already paying for through council taxes.
2) Volunteer to do what we're already paying for through council taxes.
3) Volunteer with a religious agenda.
4) Moan in a national right wing rag rather than on a local website and whip Middle England into a frenzy of "politicalcorrectnessgonemadhanging'stoogoodforthemlockthemup
andthrowawaythekeydidn'tdomeanyharm "

Thanks for that. As apparently it's my duty to ensure the misguided youth behave rather than their own or their parents'/guardians' responsibility I'll definitely give your ideas some serious consideration.

[catscratch]

Well said Nork1!!!

Sadly that which many of us perceive to be the problem in society today is barred from open debate .
We know what the cause [causes] are, we are not allowed to say out loud for fear of being howled down by a noisy and active minority professing freedom of speech for some, but not for those they disagree with.
Or simply because we are plain fed up with listening to their generic answers.

[Eagle]

Catscratch
I agree 100%
There are a number of subjects that the liberal power elite in this country refuse to discuss as of course they know best.

[Paddy Pantsdown]

the liberal power elite

Vince Telecom?

PP

[Paddy Pantsdown]

Did you know the Met started a new anti-social reporting system for buses in Lewisham, Lambeth & Southwark? Its a special 3 month trial that started on March 1st March. You text word BUS followed by the message to 80010. (A text will be charged at the standard text message rate).

Thought not. The publicity thing must have gone south again. Here you can read Tessa Jowell's full post on it: http://www.virtualnorwood.com/forum/ind ... topic=7112

Or did I miss our one from Jim Dowd?

PP

[bensonby]

Well said Nork1!!!

Sadly that which many of us perceive to be the problem in society today is barred from open debate .
We know what the cause [causes] are, we are not allowed to say out loud for fear of being howled down by a noisy and active minority professing freedom of speech for some, but not for those they disagree with.
Or simply because we are plain fed up with listening to their generic answers.

what precisely aren't you allowed to say? You're allowed to say anything you like so long as its not against the law...

[Chazza]

You're allowed to say anything you like so long as its not against the law...

...and that's exactly the kind of attitude that has allowed our present government to chip away at our civil liberties bit by bit.

[bensonby]

You're allowed to say anything you like so long as its not against the law...

...and that's exactly the kind of attitude that has allowed our present government to chip away at our civil liberties bit by bit.

huh? What on earth are you blabbering on about?

The laws restricting what can't be said predate the labour government

Criminal law, as far as I am aware, only limit freedom of speech in a few very exceptional circumstances. Namely, it is illegal to:

Incite racial hatred (cf. Race Relations Act 1976 and Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994)

Inciting a criminal offence (common law until 2008)

That, as far as I am aware is pretty much it....and that's pretty reasonable.

So what's the problem? What do you want to say that you can't say? Are you trying to incite a crime or incite racial hatred? If so....jog on.... if not....speak away!

[catscratch]

So tell us all Bensonby, just what are your legal qualifications /standing/employment/studies that enable you to speak on legal matters so authoritively?
Surely not just the part time hobby you claim.
I think we should be told.

[Thomas]

I still haven't worked out what we are not allowed to say, despite so many people apparently thinking it. Could someone enlighten me?

[admin]

I think bensonby may have forgotten the (civil) law of defamation which is the main legal cause of stuff being removed from this forum and many UK publications.

The two problems with defamation is that truth is not a defence and the fear/cost of litigation means that one has to errr on the side of the potential litigant.

I'm not a great fan of US law but their right of free speech is something I wish our politicians would fight for over here.

Admin

[bensonby]

I think bensonby may have forgotten the (civil) law of defamation which is the main legal cause of stuff being removed from this forum and many UK publications.

The two problems with defamation is that truth is not a defence and the fear/cost of litigation means that one has to errr on the side of the potential litigant.

I'm not a great fan of US law but their right of free speech is something I wish our politicians would fight for over here.

Admin

Ah, libel law...its an issue that is very complicated and one which I admit that I don't know a great deal about. Nevertheless, criminal procedings cannot be brought - and consequently there is no crime - surrounding libel. As my interest lies in criminal law, and people seemed to think that they were prohibited by law from "saying things" I didn't think to mention it.

To my knowledge libel cases can only be brought by aggrieved induviduals and organisations. Quite what this has to do with local idiots on buses and the youth of today is beyond me...

There are defences to libel claims, but admin is quite right insofar as the cost of defending them can be prohibative (even though a winner may claim expenses) thus they are so feared and sometimes grotesquly unfair. there is talk in the legal community of reforming this area of civil law.

[bensonby]

So tell us all Bensonby, just what are your legal qualifications /standing/employment/studies that enable you to speak on legal matters so authoritively?
Surely not just the part time hobby you claim.
I think we should be told.

Anyone who does a bit of research on the internet/law books can comment on the law with an ounce of authority. Unlike other countries there is no restriction on offering legal opinions on matters. I write my opinions on the basis of an interested party and do not claim to be anything special....

That said, the job I recently started requires a knowledge of quite a few aspects of criminal law. that said, I'm not a lawyer...

I'm just intruiged as to what you feel you cannot say... I've pointed out that the criminal scope of the limitations on freedom of speech and as I'm sure you can agee they are few and far between.





I must also add a couple of other limitations that I should have added:

Contempt of court, which can (among other things) stop you from revlealing elements of things released in camera in court. (and various injuctions)

perjury (which stops you lying under oath)

and various data protection legislation / official secrets act - which stop you revealing sensitive personal and state details.

(again, all of which predate 1997)

[Barty]

So tell us all Bensonby, just what are your legal qualifications /standing/employment/studies that enable you to speak on legal matters so authoritively?
Surely not just the part time hobby you claim.
I think we should be told.

Why?

I didn't know it was a prerequisite of joining the forum that you have to declare your occupation or education before your posts can be considered valid.

[catscratch]

I didn't say that at all Barty.
I am just intrigued.
But I disagree with the phrase......

"anyone can comment on the law with an ounce of authority"

we used to call them as did that barrack room lawyers.
Now here's one just for Bensonby to comment on with authority

How many Lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?

Such number as may be deemed to perform the stated task in a timely and efficient manner within the strictures of the following agreement: Whereas the party of the first part, also known as 'The Lawyer', and the party of the second part, also known as 'The Light Bulb', do hereby and forthwith agree to a transaction wherein the party of the second part (Light Bulb) shall be removed from the current position as a result of failure to perform previously agreed upon duties, i.e., the lighting, elucidation, and otherwise illumination of the area ranging from the front (north) door, through the entry way, terminating at an area just inside the primary living area, demarcated by the beginning of the carpet, any spillover illumination being at the option of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and not required by the aforementioned agreement between the parties.
The aforementioned removal transaction shall include, but not be limited to, the following steps:
The party of the first part (Lawyer) shall, with or without elevation at his option, by means of a chair, stepstool, ladder or any other means of elevation, grasp the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and rotate the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a counter-clockwise direction, said direction being non-negotiable. Said grasping and rotation of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) shall be undertaken by the party of the first part (Lawyer) with every possible caution by the party of the first part (Lawyer) to maintain the structural integrity of the party of the second part (Light Bulb), notwithstanding the aforementioned failure of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) to perform the aforementioned customary and agreed upon duties. The foregoing notwithstanding, however, both parties stipulate that structural failure of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) may be incidental to the aforementioned failure to perform and in such case the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall be held blameless for such structural failure insofar as this agreement is concerned so long as the non-negotiable directional codicil (counter-clockwise) is observed by the party of the first part (Lawyer) throughout.
Upon reaching a point where the party of the second part (Light Bulb) becomes separated from the party of the third part ('Receptacle'), the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of disposing of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a manner consistent with all applicable state, local and federal statutes.
Once separation and disposal have been achieved, the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of beginning installation of the party of the fourth part("New Light Bulb"). This installation shall occur in a manner consistent with the reverse of the procedures described in step one of this selfsame document, being careful to note that the rotation should occur in a clockwise direction, said direction also being non-negotiable.
NOTE: The above described steps may be performed, at the option of the party of the first part (Lawyer), by said party of the first part (Lawyer), by his heirs and assigns, or by any and all persons authorized by him to do so, the objective being to produce a level of illumination in the immediate vicinity of the aforementioned front (north) door consistent with maximization of ingress and revenue for the party of the fifth part, also known as 'The Firm'.

[bensonby]

Sadly that which many of us perceive to be the problem in society today is barred from open debate .

I'd still like to know what you are referring to here.... I like a debate on almost anything...

[admin]

Just to add the laws of libel and defamation are different. Libel is about the accuracy, or not, of a statement. Defamation is about injuring the character of another person.

If that is a bad or incompetent person then its hard to be honest and not do just that if you wish to warn others. Obviously if you have a barrack room of lawyers you can word your statements protectively and see the culprit in court. Those without legal training or heavy pockets can be easy meat for the unscrupulously litigious. That's why I have pulled stuff here I believe to be true and in the public interest.

Admin