And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:50:48 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Slipperysloping is a
>> reality - "Hey you're permitting X why aren't you permitting Y which is
>> just like X sort of"
>
>   It doesn't have to be. Here there are special lanes for buses, taxis
> and emergency vehicles in the biggest cities, which nobody else is  
> allowed
> to use. In other words, these vehicles get special treatment.
>
>   This has *not* caused any slippery slope to happen.

But a bus driver can't use a bus lane when they're not in a bus. As for  
slippery slope I'm not saying it's a universal simply a tendency. Take  
supermarket parking - they need to provide a certain percentage of  
handicapped spaces, now they're also providing family spaces. Now we get  
the elderly saying 'well why don't we get special closer parking, we need  
it too you know'

>> >   Ambulance drivers eat at the hospital (or whichever place they are  
>> when
>> > not on a call). They are not even supposed to eat while on a call.
>
>> So why don't the police do the same thing?
>
>   Because they are in patrol?

But they shouldn't be eating on patrol.

>> Mueen's got the right idea let a judge determine whether any such  
>> illegal
>> acts have been commited in the pursuit of a police officer's duty... oh
>> wait they did in this case and fined him.
>
>   Which of course proves that the police officer was just being arrogant
> and thought he was above the law. Right.

The judgement was that he'd broken the law, he supplied his justification  
and it was rejected in court. The only way I can see that as equating to  
arrogant or above the law was if his reasoning was that he could do what  
he liked because he was a police officer, which it wasn't.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message