Two questions for JP

Halla says...

My passport and driving licence both have name, address, DOB, COB, sex,
and a photo. Isn't that enough?

 

Simian says...

Maltese, an easy one to get wrong.

I don't have a problem with biometric passports. I just don't agree with
having to pay for an identity card when I already have other forms of
govt issued photo-ID. I also don't agree with having to carry ID around
all the time. I wasn't born into a police state, and I will not adhere
to rules laid down by one. Imo the UK is one of the last true bastions
of freedom in the world, and I want it kept that way.

FWIW, I was born here in Bedfordshire to a serving soldier and a civil
servant. On top of that I have served in the British forces myself. It
would take more than an act of god for the UK govt to try and strip me
of my British nationality and remove my right to work etc. If they tried
I think I'd be inclined to make a bit of a fuss in the papers about it
too.

 

Keelworm says...

Good idea. Hopefully my ex-wife, who is a midwife, will move back to the
UK and get one, and then have a very nasty accident on hers.

 

kin ell, you exist! There was I thinking you, or your site, was
something along the lines of Viz.
--
Tim two#21, YGL#3 & BOTAFOT#84

Due to the limitations of current email, the lip movements may be
out of synchronisation as you move your finger under the text while reading.

tim dot ukrm2 at dsl dot pipex dot com

 

In message <>, Lozzo

[snip]

While the circumstances were slightly different [1], it didn't stop HMG
from denying Terence "Spike" Milligan from obtaining a British passport.
Somehow I think you're probably ok, but I'd hide that Maltese passport
under the mattress if I were you

[1] Born India to serving British army personnel, served in British army
himself and ends up with an Irish passport on account of his
Grandfather.
--
Tim two#21, YGL#3 & BOTAFOT#84

Due to the limitations of current email, the lip movements may be
out of synchronisation as you move your finger under the text while reading.

tim dot ukrm2 at dsl dot pipex dot com

 

You're missing the point. Having a suspicion (of something) is a
reason to stop a vehicle. That suspicion can be documented in notes
and read back in court. It's the doing it for no reason at all that
we're arguing about.

 

Lozzo said:

It's good to see that us Raundsfolk aren't the only ones to uphold the
tradition of never forgiving and forgetting.

 

Champ says...

"Why have you stopped me?"
"Suspicion of being a ****, sir."

 

Well I'm saying that "suspicion" for a copper can mean anything - and
can be used as an excuse to justify stopping after the event. I noted
what JP said about not needing a reason to stop a vehicle but should he
ever be asked why he stopped one vehicle rather than another he can just
say he thought it looked a bit suspicious and who is to say otherwise?
The notes are written up afterwards. It was abuse of "suspicion" that
lead to the right to stop people in the street being withdrawn, I think
the same can be argued over their right to stop a vehicle for no reason.

 

What she did was unforgiveable.

 

So they'll breed a little ID card all by themselves.

 

Lozzo said:

They are all as bad old chap...

 

The one in the middle is to their credit, and contrasts to the British.

Americans can also manage a work force, and run a business; areas where the
British are sadly lacking.

# Viet Namese speakers stationed by US armed forces in Saigon (1964): 7

# Viet Namese speakers stationed by US armed forces in Saigon (1974): 7

.. . . and they still have not noticed.

 

I should be very happy to see some. How do I get through to JP that I
simply cannot give way to a bully, for it does not achieve anything?

 

Tom Moore wrote

Stop looking in the mirror.

 

Go back to your friend - Sergeant John-Paul Davis of Surrey Police - and
persuade him to tell you the whole truth. When you have that, you can
perhaps play a role: simply throwing false allegations at me is not going
to resolve anything. Water/duck/back.

Quack.

 

I wish.

 

Except - you idiot - that "the police" were in the middle of the
biggest manhunt in known history. They were checking *everything* so
it wasn't random.

You've also got to remember that the thick cunts questioned Sutcliffe
and let him go to kill again.

 

It's wrong.

 

It wasn't possible to check "everything" - do you have any idea how big
an area he was operating in? One reason he got away with it was the
sheer size of the area he killed in. As I said, this was a lucky chance
and the biggest murder case for years was solved by a nosy copper.

Well that's a different issue, there have been too many crimes "solved"
by"suspicious vehicle" stops for the Police to want to give them up.
Maybe the Ripper case wasn't a good example of this but the thread was
about whether the Police should have the power to stop vehicles for no
reason and I was trying to argue that they won't give up that right
easily.