Safe Speed Forums

lol - there's no way the Govt would find it difficult to tax! They manage to tax everything else, don't they?

But by taxing it, they might be seen to be condoning it.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

One thing is that booze is so easy to make yourself. I drink a few litres a week, but I never buy it from the beer store. Some drugs are like that too. Making laughing gas gets a bit technical, but it seems possible as a winter project, if you have to room. And legal, if that's important to anyone.

I would far prefer it if the government focused on "government jobs", like trash and sewage disposal, clearing litter, printing money, painting lines in the road, that sort of thing.

I don't like them branching out into control freakery, like telling me what weeds I can smoke. Those decisions are for me to make, and the government can go back to stamping paperwork or whatever they do when there's no more line painting needed.

There's too much "government" going on for my liking. It's high time we swished it all away.

It's been mentioned here before bud. In fact I posted this one a long time ago: -

"The legislatively hyperactive Blair premiership has seen an average of 2,685 new laws introduced each year - a 22 per cent increase on the previous decade under the Tories."


If you never saw this it'll make your hair curl...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... laws04.xml

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

..........and do you really think that things are going to change because you vote for another : individual, or party, etc?...........no, of course it won't, that's the lesson of age my friends.

And those people, parties, ....................(all reflections of their public school days) playing politics for the masses every Wednesday with an eye to their own careers, spouting what YOU wish to hear but will NEVER carry out in their "after school" playground called Parliament!

The BBC: the "Big Brother Corporation".....expands upon the brainwashing right wing owned Press barons who provide "pap for the masses" for your delectation of pictures of naked women, the football results and the latest "get me outa' here" jungle gossip.

Anything but what you really should know....

Namely: The truth!

GRRrrr!

P.S. That goes for 'em ALL........

The problem, as I see it, is that the 'main' parties are not trying to win the popular vote, because the common man can't be arsed to get off his rear to go and vote. No, the 'big' parties are more interested in courting the 'vocal majorities', like the loonie environmentalists who believe Armageddon will be caused by discarded twist-ties, because people who feel that strongly about an issue are people who are going to go and vote! Given that the last two general elections have seen a turn-out of under 50% of the electorate, its not necessarily a bad policy for career politicians, who's only measure of success is how long they spend in power, rather than how much good they do for our fine nation!

How long has that been going on for? I'm not saying it would be an overnight solution, but the supplier creates an addict who then keeps him in business, you remove a link from the chain...



Personally I think we blame too much of societys ills on drugs wheras drugs themselves are not the root cause, just a sympton and a scapegoat. The sympton may look like the cause but when you scratch the surface there are nearly always other underlying issues. As a society we have become more uncaring, insular and self serving and it's easy to see the sympton as the issue because you simply don't care to look for the problem, wheras as a medical person you know merely treating symptons is not the answer.

I was thinking date-rape drugs are off-topic, to the points I was making anyway, but actually there're a great example of what I'm saying- anyone who has the inclination to use one is obviously suffering from massive mental health issues, the drug itself is not the problem anymore than blaming the car of the man who mows down schoolkids. But again, we routinely ignore the signs these people exhibit, and wait for the worst to happen, then find a convenient pin-up scapegoat [the evil drug used].

And then, I know people who do everything from smoke pot to large class A habits, who still have jobs, have houses, pay mortgages, treat people right, contribute to society and are happy with their lives. who are we to say what they do is wrong?

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

That is so true.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

Agreed anterra, personally if I was asked to name it in one word, I would say: Inequality! Not only in monetary terms, but expectations. We are now in a Nation MORE unequal than Charles Dickens wrote about!

IMO, NO economy can survive like that. They don't want to pay you, they don't want you to borrow.............but they want you to spend LOTS of money to keep them rich.

If only the Top 5% are wealthy and able to spend, it'll NEVER work!

Now I've been lucky, but all that's left in our Town....is £1 shops!..all the rest as gone.

Thats very true. You hear constantly about the "gross net worth" and the "average" salery but the fact is the gap between the haves and the have-nots has been expanding for years. Evan knowing this, I was suprised to learn that camden housing services now consider a one bed + lounge flat adequate as a "2 bedder", so a couple + child can't demand a 2 bed flat. Obviously this has been done by private sharers for years but to be made official policy, is proof beyond doubt that socially, we're moving backwards.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I voted labour so they'd go after the toffs and give me a break. But they've gone after me and given the toffs a break! What's going on?

They haven't quite cottoned-on to how the real world works...

"Toffs", by which I assume you mean the really rich, are able to live, or at least be notionally domiciled, in whatever place or country offers them the most benign tax regime. Slap a heavy tax on them here and they simply b*gger-off to somewhere else. It doesn't stop the government from trying though, with the net result that the moderately well off get clobbered because they can't afford to toddle off to Monaco.

Socialists, for all their supposed high-minded ideals, still can't come to terms with the simple fact that it's not possible to make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Do we have a Brunstrom effect in action?

I have realised that Brunstrom's way of dealing with speeding (sic) drivers and with drugs are very similar.

An idea forms in Brunstrom's head. ("Speed cameras are the way forward! Ban drivers for driving at 30.5mph!" "Legalise all hard drugs! Let people snort coke, shoot up heroin, smoke crack, etc., etc., etc.")

Now, whilst there might be some arguments for the use of safety cameras (not necessarily speed cameras, let's be clear about that) and for changes in the drug laws, it seems that Brunstrom cannot bear to be with everyone else. He has to be the maverick out in front, getting all the PR glory. And you know it, he does love his PR exposure, doesn't he?

Brunstrom doesn't care that his speed camera policy causes deaths (Anyone who crashes at speed and dies in North Wales has clearly NOT been saved by Brunstrom's speed camera policy) nor does he care that there are potential dangers of allowing anyone, anywhere to start consuming hard drugs, legally. If implemented, the number of road deaths would possibly increase, so Brunstrom's plans to legalise all hard drugs would decrease road safety, his other apparent big campaign issue.

That Brunstrom cannot see the link between the two makes me question his commitment to road safety and to the safety of potential consumers of legalised hard drugs.

What on earth is Brunstrom really up to?

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

I was thinking of the “rather well off”, as well as the super rich.



The relationship between the rich and the poor is more complex than your quip might suggest. It is well illustrated by those toffs living in Ashtead, Surrey. A charity wanted to use a large house in their neighbourhood as a rehabilitation centre for poor, wounded soldiers maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the “well healed” locals came out in force, and the local council turned down the plans after "overwhelming" local opposition!

The issue put a spot light on rich toffs who cruelly spurned the poor invalids when they were in severe difficulties. It was extremely un-English, in my opinion, and revealed deeply disgusting attitudes among the monied classes. I’d have no problem at all if Brown ripped them off, merely for the entertainment value it would provide!