On Fri, 09 May 2008 11:37:48 +0100, Alang
wrote:
>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.
>>
>If the police were really impartial they would be checking our Home
>Sec for drugs every time she goes out.
Here's something I've just read that aptly describes my views about
the situation:
"We're in the territory here of something in the penumbra of ethics;
something I'd think of as a distinction between 'civilised' and
'uncivilised'. No law can or should be drafted to tell me where I can
walk on the pavement: but if I find myself behind a lone woman at
night, the civilised thing to do is to cross the road so she doesn't
feel intimidated by my footsteps."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/10/do1004.xml
And in the example of the lone woman, I have often deliberately held
back or crossed the road for the very reason given.
MM |