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