On Fri, 9 May 2008 23:08:08 +0100, Richard Miller
wrote:
>In message , MM
> writes
>>On Fri, 09 May 2008 02:36:37 +0100, judith
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 May 2008 20:24:43 +0100, MM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I couldn't give a monkey's what their previous is. If they are doing
>>>>>something illegal - let plod arrest them and charge them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Does Smith really think that "harassing" and "hounding" someone is the
>>>>>answer to any problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you have a drunk driving offence against you - would it be
>>>>>reasonable that plod stopped you every time they saw that you were
>>>>>driving to check if a breath test was in order.
>>>>
>>>>If they have reason to suspect I could be driving erratically, sure.
>>>>As with anyone else.
>>>>
>>>>MM
>>>
>>>
>>>ffs - I did not say if people were driving erratically - I am talking
>>>about someone having a past - therefore that person will be harassed -
>>>irrespective of what they are doing.
>>
>>But the police need a reason to suspect you may be under the
>>influence! Otherwise they might as well confiscate the driving
>>licences of all who have been convicted of drunk driving.
>>
>
>Exactly.
>
>And now you are getting to the heart of what is wrong with this latest
>idea.
So you're yet another who thinks it's okay for the police to know who
is, or has been, engaging in intimidation, burglary, criminal damage,
antisocial behaviour or vehicle crime, but do nothing to make sure the
perps get the message not to do it again?
MM |