And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:43:10 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> So presumably you'd want to widen this to including firefighters,
>> ambulance drivers, doctors, nurses etc.
>
>   No, because they don't patrol the streets while on duty.
>
>   You are still slipperysloping.

Um yes you keep trying to suggest that this train of argument is  
universally flawed without providing any evidence. Slipperysloping is a  
reality - "Hey you're permitting X why aren't you permitting Y which is  
just like X sort of"

>> An ambulance driver is on their
>> way back from a call stops off in a no-parking zone to grab a meal  
>> because
>> a) he needs to keep an eye on the vehicle and b) needs to be able to
>> respond to an emergency.
>
>   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?

>> >   Basically you are saying that in a situation where doing both things
>> > at the same time is not possible by the strict letter of the law, for
>> > example because there are no available parking slots nearby, the  
>> police
>> > officer must sacrifice one duty for the other.
>
>> Or to put it another way he has to do what everyone else has to do.
>
>   Everyone else don't have the same duties as police officers. A police
> officer has more responsibility, thus it's only logical to make him
> fulfilling this responsibility as easy as possible.

Nope it's the Spiderman quote - a police officer is given more powers and  
thus has a greater responsibilty not to abuse them. IOW the rules should  
be stricter when they are not directly in pursuit of those duties.

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.

-- 
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

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         This whole discussion is fairly amusing.

>         There's a law. The law did not make exceptions for the police. If 
> people think exceptions should be made, let them try to have it 
> codified. The police officer can't be let off the hook because _some_ 
> people think they should.

  Personally, I wasn't discussing whether the police office broke the law
or not, but whether it makes sense to allow the police in general more
leniency eg. in parking if it's logically justifiable.

  If the judge was forced to fine the police officer because of the letter
of the law, perhaps the law should be changed.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:26:46 +0100, Tom Austin <taustin> did spake,  
saying:

> I once say a police car pull up at a McDonalds and block (2) handicapped  
> stalls because he parked badly.  He was not in uniform.  He got out and  
> proceeded to return a video the video machine there.  He then went  
> inside and got something and came back out.  All in all he was there for  
> about 5 minutes.
>
> What frustrated me was that he looked off duty (but that may not have  
> been the case), blocked 2 handicapped stalls - all with about 5 empty  
> parking spaces about 25 feet away that were easy to get into and out of  
> - ie pull through.

Ah now see he had to get to the video store to return the video otherwise  
they'd have blacklisted him. He then wouldn't be able to get videos for  
his 'downtime' relaxation thus increasing his tension and impacting on his  
ability as a police officer. Parking across two stalls was the only way of  
being able to keep an eye on his vehicle and thus necessary in the pursuit  
of his duties.

-- 
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

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.

> >   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?

> 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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   At least here in some of the biggest cities there are lanes on the biggest
> roads which are reserved exclusively for the use of buses, taxis and
> emergency vehicles. Other people are prohibited from using that lane by
> law. If they use the lane, they get fined.

There are signs on those lanes sayin "BUS" or "BUS/TAXI" oslt defining 
who can drive on it (taxis aren't actually allowed to drive on bus-only 
-lane, but they do - and don't get fined).

There are also signs saying "Parking prohibited except for police cars". 
What I understood there was no such sign where the officet got the fine.

>   Is this exemption unfair and a slippery slope? Is it unfair that *some*
> people (such as bus drivers and the police) can use the special lane but
> not others?

No, it's strictly specified. What's unfair and a slippery slope is those 
taxi drivers that don't get fined by driving on a bus-only -lane and 
polices driving on a walk-only -road while patrolling (which happens *a 
lot* at Hämeenlinna), which they could do on theier feet at such a place.

>   Or is this exemption there in order to make traffic more fluent and
> less troublesome?

Yes.

>   Why couldn't the police be exempted from parking prohibitions, as long
> as they do it in a manner that doesn't cause problems to anyone? I just
> can't see any rational reason.

They could, but they aren't.

OTOH, why couldn't anyone else be exempted from parking prohibitions, if 
they manage to do it in a manner that doesn't cause problems to anyone?

(Yes, I did cut away number of reasons to allow this for police forces - 
it doesn't affect on reasons for denying it for other people).

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

On 28-Jul-08 0:33, somebody wrote:
>> As slime said: it is not a problem if you make it into a law. As long as
>> it is not a law however, the police should abide by the existing law.
> 
> Would you also agree that as long as it's the law, blacks should sit at the
> back end of the bus?

I would only go as far as to say that as long as it is the law the black 
policemen should sit at the back.

> Granted, not in the same league,

indeed

> but laws evolve via challenges

indeed

Post a reply to this message

On 28-Jul-08 2:22, Tim Attwood wrote:
>>> "Oh, we shouldn't have to worry about that, since we're the Police!"
>>> At best it's arrogant and annoying
>>  No. At best it's a question of practicality and safety.
> 
> There's some anti-police intolerance going on though,
> or he wouldn't have gotten a ticket in the first place.
> 
As I understood it there is a possibility of a 'citizen complaint' in 
Oregon, which bypasses the police. Very sensible concept, I don't think 
we got such a thing here (but, IANAL).

Post a reply to this message

On 28-Jul-08 18:23, Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>         This whole discussion is fairly amusing.
> 
>>         There's a law. The law did not make exceptions for the police. If 
>> people think exceptions should be made, let them try to have it 
>> codified. The police officer can't be let off the hook because _some_ 
>> people think they should.
> 
>   Personally, I wasn't discussing whether the police office broke the law
> or not, but whether it makes sense to allow the police in general more
> leniency eg. in parking if it's logically justifiable.

Yes, I know, and many here, including myself, have made the case that 
they should have *less*. In essence this is an ethical discussion and we 
have thus established that you have different ethics than e.g. me. 
Interesting, but not exactly earth shocking. ;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Yes, I know, and many here, including myself, have made the case that 
> they should have *less*. In essence this is an ethical discussion and we 
> have thus established that you have different ethics than e.g. me. 
> Interesting, but not exactly earth shocking. ;)

  I often like to oppose the majority in many things. That doesn't mean
it's just a principle for the sake of principle. I honestly think that
often the majority truely is wrong, or at least has a misconception or
a view which is too radical.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 28-Jul-08 22:58, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Yes, I know, and many here, including myself, have made the case that 
>> they should have *less*. In essence this is an ethical discussion and we 
>> have thus established that you have different ethics than e.g. me. 
>> Interesting, but not exactly earth shocking. ;)
> 
>   I often like to oppose the majority in many things. That doesn't mean
> it's just a principle for the sake of principle. I honestly think that
> often the majority truely is wrong, or at least has a misconception or
> a view which is too radical.

In this case you may be part of a majority, actually. In most countries 
there are groups that are effectively above the law and think they 
should be. Which is indeed basically why I think you are wrong on this 
account, but that is just my opinion. ;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> In this case you may be part of a majority, actually.

  Sometimes I feel that agreeing with the majority actually *is* rebelling
against common (and loudest) opinion.

  An example: if you believed the internet, the vast majority of people
hate Star Wars Episode 1. However, in reality the majority of people
liked it (at least if you look at its profits).
  Now, rebelling against the people who diss SW Episode 1 is, technically
speaking, agreeing with the majority. Somehow I still feel like a minority
when I say that I liked the movie.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 28-Jul-08 23:34, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> In this case you may be part of a majority, actually.
> 
>   Sometimes I feel that agreeing with the majority actually *is* rebelling
> against common (and loudest) opinion.
> 
>   An example: if you believed the internet, the vast majority of people
> hate Star Wars Episode 1. However, in reality the majority of people
> liked it (at least if you look at its profits).
>   Now, rebelling against the people who diss SW Episode 1 is, technically
> speaking, agreeing with the majority. Somehow I still feel like a minority
> when I say that I liked the movie.

OMG, first that and now an appeal to be part of the silent majority.





































just kidding of course ;)

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:26:46 +0100, Tom Austin <taustin> did 
> spake, saying:
> 
>> I once say a police car pull up at a McDonalds and block (2) 
>> handicapped stalls because he parked badly.  He was not in uniform.  
>> He got out and proceeded to return a video the video machine there.  
>> He then went inside and got something and came back out.  All in all 
>> he was there for about 5 minutes.
>>
>> What frustrated me was that he looked off duty (but that may not have 
>> been the case), blocked 2 handicapped stalls - all with about 5 empty 
>> parking spaces about 25 feet away that were easy to get into and out 
>> of - ie pull through.
> 
> Ah now see he had to get to the video store to return the video 
> otherwise they'd have blacklisted him. He then wouldn't be able to get 
> videos for his 'downtime' relaxation thus increasing his tension and 
> impacting on his ability as a police officer. Parking across two stalls 
> was the only way of being able to keep an eye on his vehicle and thus 
> necessary in the pursuit of his duties.
> 

Let's also repeal all drug laws, but only with respect to law 
enforcement officers. They seize the drugs, let them use them as well. 
After all, their 'down time' is important, so let's not tie them up with 
the legalities of whether they should or shouldn't. Pot and alcohol will 
let them chill out better, and any of the uppers they can get will help 
them perform their duty better.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> In this case you may be part of a majority, actually.
> 
>   Sometimes I feel that agreeing with the majority actually *is* rebelling
> against common (and loudest) opinion.
> 
>   An example: if you believed the internet, the vast majority of people
> hate Star Wars Episode 1. However, in reality the majority of people
> liked it (at least if you look at its profits).
>   Now, rebelling against the people who diss SW Episode 1 is, technically
> speaking, agreeing with the majority. Somehow I still feel like a minority
> when I say that I liked the movie.
> 

SW Ep 1 was the turning point for me.  It's the point when I realized 
I'm too old to enjoy SW :(

It also made me realize that a movie doesn't have to be a "good" movie 
to have a strangely addictive property.  I've seen EP1 countless times, 
despite not liking it.

Curiouser and curiouser...

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

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

And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:58:59 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Yes, I know, and many here, including myself, have made the case that
>> they should have *less*. In essence this is an ethical discussion and we
>> have thus established that you have different ethics than e.g. me.
>> Interesting, but not exactly earth shocking. ;)
>
>   I often like to oppose the majority in many things. That doesn't mean
> it's just a principle for the sake of principle. I honestly think that
> often the majority truely is wrong, or at least has a misconception or
> a view which is too radical.

Except by definition in terms of ethics and social morality the majority  
is always 'right'. It's only when a minority change the perception of the  
majority does 'right' become 'wrong'.

-- 
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

And lo on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:28:13 +0100, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at  
vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:

> Let's also repeal all drug laws, but only with respect to law  
> enforcement officers. They seize the drugs, let them use them as well.  
> After all, their 'down time' is important, so let's not tie them up with  
> the legalities of whether they should or shouldn't. Pot and alcohol will  
> let them chill out better, and any of the uppers they can get will help  
> them perform their duty better.

Heck they could throw parties and sell them. Anyone who buys them and  
leaves the party could be stopped, arrested, and have the drugs  
confiscated to be thrown back into the party for resale. Now that'd help  
with funding.

-- 
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

Maybe we shouldn't complain too much about the police parking

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/rfisman/parking_20july06_RF.pdf

It seems that in some places diplomats (and their representatives) are 
worse at it.

They ignore the tickets they receive.




Tom

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> >> So why don't the police do the same thing?
> >
> >   Because they are in patrol?

> But they shouldn't be eating on patrol.

  Excuse me? The police must go all day without eating? This is getting
just ridiculous.

> >> 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.

  But not because the justification was bad, but because the judge had no
choice. His hands were tied.

> 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.

  You have a rather narrow view of things if that's the *only* way you can
see the situation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:47:58 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> >> So why don't the police do the same thing?
>> >
>> >   Because they are in patrol?
>
>> But they shouldn't be eating on patrol.
>
>   Excuse me? The police must go all day without eating? This is getting
> just ridiculous.

Quite right police should go all day without eating just like ambulance  
drivers.

<snip>
>> The judgement was that he'd broken the law, he supplied his  
>> justification and it was rejected in court.
>
>   But not because the justification was bad, but because the judge had no
> choice. His hands were tied.

The judge could have decided that the officer was acting within his duties  
and thus eligible to break such rules. Sort of the point of having a  
judge, keeps the government in check.

>> 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.
>
>   You have a rather narrow view of things if that's the *only* way you  
> can see the situation.

No you posited a point that required a response -
I point out that Mueen suggests such things are fought in court.
I point out that in this case it was and the officer lost.
You declared that this proves that the officer was arrogant and above the  
law with the challenge "Right".
I respond as above.

-- 
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

On 29-Jul-08 14:27, Tom Austin wrote:
> Maybe we shouldn't complain too much about the police parking
> 
> http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/rfisman/parking_20july06_RF.pdf
> 
> It seems that in some places diplomats (and their representatives) are 
> worse at it.
> 
> They ignore the tickets they receive.

I though this would be about UN diplomats in new york and I wasn't 
disappointed. In the table starting on page 22 it seems that the dutch 
are in tied last place. I am sure could do better if we wanted to. 
Interestingly the US seem to be absent from this list.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> So we've got a judge who admits that the officer broke the law, but he 
> "didn't think the officer did anything wrong."

Sometimes the law is bad.

I got a ticket once for running out of passing zone while passing. When 
I went to court, the judge said "where did this happen?"  I told him. He 
  said "Yeah, I know that road. The passing zone is too short. Case 
dismissed."

Not that it happens often, mind.

> I'd like to know why this man is a judge, and why we trust him to decide 
> questions about guilt and innocence when he cannot understand that 
> breaking they law is the definition of wrong.

It isn't, in the USA at least. That's what juries are for. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On 29-Jul-08 21:50, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> 
>> I'd like to know why this man is a judge, and why we trust him to 
>> decide questions about guilt and innocence when he cannot understand 
>> that breaking they law is the definition of wrong.
> 
> It isn't, in the USA at least. That's what juries are for. :-)
> 
Sure, I forgot. Isn't that also the country where they elect the judges.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> They are not even supposed to eat while on a call.

Around here, police call in a meal stop so they don't get assigned to 
stuff while they're not at the car.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Sure, I forgot. Isn't that also the country where they elect the judges.

Some are elected, some are appointed. We have like 23 kazillion 
jurisdictions here.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> >   Excuse me? The police must go all day without eating? This is getting
> > just ridiculous.

> Quite right police should go all day without eating just like ambulance  
> drivers.

  So ambulance drivers patrol the streets all day long nowadays? I didn't
know that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

I like SW Ep 1, Jar Jar Binks is a great character.

I strongly dislike SW Ep 2, I sometime refer to it as Snore Wars.

SW Ep 3 feels like something made for a fan reunion.

SW Ep 4-6 really broke new technical ground in SF
movie making.

Ep 1-3 focused on the "Grand Art" too much, it lost
much of the gritty feeling of Ep 4-6, much to the detriment.
Ep 1-3 were too slick, too fantastically unreal.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood <tim### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> SW Ep 4-6 really broke new technical ground in SF
> movie making.

  Hmm. When I compare the first SW movie (made in 1977) to the Alien movie
(made in 1979), the former looks really, really simple and cheap. I'm just
not able to see why it's so good as everyone claims.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> SW Ep 4-6 really broke new technical ground in SF
>> movie making.
>
>  Hmm. When I compare the first SW movie (made in 1977) to the Alien movie
> (made in 1979), the former looks really, really simple and cheap. I'm just
> not able to see why it's so good as everyone claims.

Hollywood had almost given up on SF before SW: Ep 4, so
in some ways Lucas lucked into a market that was hungry
for any SF movies, and sparse on other blockbusters. It opened
in May, and in my town was still showing in November against
Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind. Movies in rival genres were
especially bad that year, like The Choirboys, which could
easily have drawn a NC-17 rating.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:07:27 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> >   Excuse me? The police must go all day without eating? This is  
>> getting
>> > just ridiculous.
>
>> Quite right police should go all day without eating just like ambulance
>> drivers.
>
>   So ambulance drivers patrol the streets all day long nowadays? I didn't
> know that.

Police officers patrol the streets all day long - must get tiring not  
having one single break; oh wait what did Darren say?

-- 
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

And lo on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:31:17 +0100, Tim Attwood  
<tim### [at] comcastnet> did spake, saying:

> Jar Jar Binks is a great character.

!
?

-- 
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

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Police officers patrol the streets all day long - must get tiring not  
> having one single break; oh wait what did Darren say?

  So police officers are not assumed to be ready for emergencies in their
break. Even if a gang is mass raping a woman, the policeman can simply say
"I'm on a break, not my problem; maybe when my break is over".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:09:28 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Police officers patrol the streets all day long - must get tiring not
>> having one single break; oh wait what did Darren say?
>
>   So police officers are not assumed to be ready for emergencies in their
> break. Even if a gang is mass raping a woman, the policeman can simply  
> say
> "I'm on a break, not my problem; maybe when my break is over".

Yep in the same way that ambulance drivers, doctors, and firefighters are  
not assumed to be ready for emergencies in their break.

-- 
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

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> >   So police officers are not assumed to be ready for emergencies in their
> > break. Even if a gang is mass raping a woman, the policeman can simply  
> > say
> > "I'm on a break, not my problem; maybe when my break is over".

> Yep in the same way that ambulance drivers, doctors, and firefighters are  
> not assumed to be ready for emergencies in their break.

  I'm pretty sure a policeman would be sent to jail if it did like
I described.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I'm pretty sure a policeman would be sent to jail if it did like
> I described.

	Policemen over here often do much worse and rarely go to jail. Ignoring 
a call is relatively minor - at worst they'd lose their job - likely 
they'll just get a suspension or warning.

In any case, perhaps this will answer the question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070522194214AA8j2hx

Didn't find anything official.

-- 
Complaints? Write them here legibly [] <-


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I'm pretty sure a policeman would be sent to jail if it did like
> I described.

In this country, police aren't required to actually enforce the law.

And I'm sure it varies depending on how many police you have. In New 
York City, they probably have enough cops they can afford to let 10% of 
them be eating at any one time. In some town with three cops, I imagine 
you grab what you can, but likely don't get interrupted all that often.

I'll ask my brother, who was a cop in Las Vegas.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:39:03 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Tim Attwood <tim### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
>> SW Ep 4-6 really broke new technical ground in SF movie making.
> 
>   Hmm. When I compare the first SW movie (made in 1977) to the Alien
>   movie
> (made in 1979), the former looks really, really simple and cheap. I'm
> just not able to see why it's so good as everyone claims.

The thing about SWEP4 was that there were a lot of techniques used in 
making the film that had not been done before (or had been done in very 
limited fashion).  There were a lot of "firsts" in filmmaking with that 
film.

Of course Alien would look much better - 2 years to develop and refine 
techniques first used *ever* in ep4 would tend to do that.  And of course 
you also had Stan Winston doing the animatronics and creature effects.  
They guy was *outstanding* with that stuff.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> >   So police officers are not assumed to be ready for emergencies in 
>> > their
>> > break. Even if a gang is mass raping a woman, the policeman can simply
>> > say
>> > "I'm on a break, not my problem; maybe when my break is over".
>
>> Yep in the same way that ambulance drivers, doctors, and firefighters are
>> not assumed to be ready for emergencies in their break.
>
>  I'm pretty sure a policeman would be sent to jail if it did like
> I described.

So would the doctor/firefighter if there were 5 people dying and they just 
sat there and carried on eating their sandwich.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:41:50 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake, saying:

>>> >   So police officers are not assumed to be ready for emergencies in  
>>> > their
>>> > break. Even if a gang is mass raping a woman, the policeman can  
>>> simply
>>> > say
>>> > "I'm on a break, not my problem; maybe when my break is over".
>>
>>> Yep in the same way that ambulance drivers, doctors, and firefighters  
>>> are
>>> not assumed to be ready for emergencies in their break.
>>
>>  I'm pretty sure a policeman would be sent to jail if it did like
>> I described.
>
> So would the doctor/firefighter if there were 5 people dying and they  
> just sat there and carried on eating their sandwich.

Which was my point. So far the argument is that it's quite all right for  
ambulance drivers etc to take a meal break, but police officers can't.  
That would be like doctors only being allowed to eat on wards in case one  
of the patients needs them. If someone is on a break you know that they're  
going to have an increased response time.

Actually we're just talking meals here, do the police have a toilet fitted  
to their vehicles? If not does this mean that the officer has to park  
their vehicle right outside the toilet and keep all the doors open so they  
can keep an eye on it and be ready to [cough] leap up to answer an  
emrgency call?

-- 
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

Warp wrote:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>   So police officers are not assumed to be ready for emergencies in their
>>> break. Even if a gang is mass raping a woman, the policeman can simply  
>>> say
>>> "I'm on a break, not my problem; maybe when my break is over".
> 
>> Yep in the same way that ambulance drivers, doctors, and firefighters are  
>> not assumed to be ready for emergencies in their break.
> 
>   I'm pretty sure a policeman would be sent to jail if it did like
> I described.
> 

Not in the USA. The police have the duty to solve and prevent crimes, 
not to prevent all of them from occurring. Which ones they pick and 
choose is not exactly a clear cut matter.

summary: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
actual ruling: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/gonzalesf122805.pdf

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
> I like SW Ep 1,

All right,

> Jar Jar Binks is a great character.

What smokest thou?

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Jar Jar Binks is a great character.

> What smokest thou?

  I really can't see what's wrong with him.

  When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> Jar Jar Binks is a great character.
> 
>> What smokest thou?
> 
>   I really can't see what's wrong with him.
> 
>   When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
> with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.

The part that I didn't like was that they gave him a comic relief role, 
which theretofore had been handled by R2D2 and C3PO.  Admittedly, he did 
advance the plot in small ways, but he was primarily comic relief.

The droids were funnier.  Jar-Jar's attempts at humor often failed, and 
there's little more annoying than an attempt a humor that fails.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> Jar Jar Binks is a great character.
> 
>> What smokest thou?
> 
>   I really can't see what's wrong with him.
> 
>   When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
> with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.
> 

It was the sheer idiocy of the character.  It's the same reason I don't 
like characters like Barney the Dinosaur, or movies like Dumb and Dumber.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:11:51 +0100, Chambers  
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:

> Warp wrote:
>> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Jar Jar Binks is a great character.
>>
>>> What smokest thou?
>>    I really can't see what's wrong with him.
>>    When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
>> with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.
>>
>
> It was the sheer idiocy of the character.  It's the same reason I don't  
> like characters like Barney the Dinosaur, or movies like Dumb and Dumber.

But Barney's aimed at the young and Dumb and Dumber is intentionally  
idiotic, that's where Jar Jar fails; the humour in Star Wars was always  
incidental and oh look here's a character who's almost pure comic relief.

-- 
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

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:05:31 -0400, Warp wrote:

> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> > Jar Jar Binks is a great character.
> 
>> What smokest thou?
> 
>   I really can't see what's wrong with him.
> 
>   When I first saw the movie, I didn't find anything annoying or wrong
> with him. It was only afterwards that I realized that people hate him.

He was intended as a distraction to keep people from realizing how bad 
the film really was.

Lucas did an excellent job in the original three films of casting a 
*group* who could act together.  The dialogue wasn't always really good, 
but you could believe that these people could work together on their 
cause.

In ep1-ep3, I just didn't feel that was there.  Especially in ep1, 
however, because the lines were just so wooden and delivered without any 
emotive quality at all.

And then you thrown in a clown to distract from how bad it really is; 
some people said it was racial stereotyping (I think that's a stretch 
personally) that made it that much worse.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> however, because the lines were just so wooden and delivered without any 
> emotive quality at all.

I had heard that the actors complained there was so much green-screening 
that they had nothing to go on. Not unlike Neo or The Black Hole.

On the other hand, Speed Racer was apparently 100% green-screen, and 
that wasn't *too* bad. Overacted, perhaps, but ....

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
  kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
  who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
  and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:53:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> however, because the lines were just so wooden and delivered without
>> any emotive quality at all.
> 
> I had heard that the actors complained there was so much green-screening
> that they had nothing to go on. Not unlike Neo or The Black Hole.

Yeah, I'd heard that as well.  But even still, lots of actors have to 
deal with films that are largely green-screened and still do a far better 
job then the ensemble did in ep1.

> On the other hand, Speed Racer was apparently 100% green-screen, and
> that wasn't *too* bad. Overacted, perhaps, but ....

 But I think Speed Racer was *intended* to be overacted.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:11:51 +0100, Chambers 
> <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
>> It was the sheer idiocy of the character.  It's the same reason I 
>> don't like characters like Barney the Dinosaur, or movies like Dumb 
>> and Dumber.
> 
> But Barney's aimed at the young

Not a valid excuse.  I've seen plenty of programming aimed at the young 
that isn't idiotic in the slightest.

> and Dumb and Dumber is intentionally 
> idiotic,

Oh, so they were *trying* to be dumb... that really makes them less 
dumb, doesn't it?

Like I said, it's the sheer idiocy of it.  I don't care if they were 
trying to be that way or not; actually, it's worse, because rather than 
being something they can't avoid, they're intentionally doing something 
that I don't like.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:32:37 +0100, Chambers  
<ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> And lo on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:11:51 +0100, Chambers  
>> <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> did spake, saying:
>>> It was the sheer idiocy of the character.  It's the same reason I  
>>> don't like characters like Barney the Dinosaur, or movies like Dumb  
>>> and Dumber.
>>  But Barney's aimed at the young
>
> Not a valid excuse.  I've seen plenty of programming aimed at the young  
> that isn't idiotic in the slightest.

Would you deprive the idiot demographic?

>> and Dumb and Dumber is intentionally idiotic,
>
> Oh, so they were *trying* to be dumb... that really makes them less  
> dumb, doesn't it?
>
> Like I said, it's the sheer idiocy of it.  I don't care if they were  
> trying to be that way or not; actually, it's worse, because rather than  
> being something they can't avoid, they're intentionally doing something  
> that I don't like.

Then don't watch it. With a title like Dumb and Dumber are you expecting  
to see a biography of Proust. It's the idiotic characters that populate an  
otherwise non-idiotic show that you should be railing against, in this  
context Jar Jar serves no purpose that couldn't have been handed off to a  
less idiotic character.

-- 
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