|| Oh FFS
||Sep. 22nd, 2005 11:23 am|
Can we please have a constitutional amendment banning anyone called "Blair" from holding any form of office? Ever?|
For that matter, can we please HAVE A BLOODY CONSTITUTION!?!
to be fair, there is a difference between taking someones driving licence and shooting them in the head.
Indeed. Lots of people, like most teenagers, don't have driving licences, but they do have heads...
Under Sir Ian’s plans, officers would, for example, patrol an estate plagued by antisocial behaviour such as teenagers gathering in groups.
Right, because it's not social to gather in groups. Of course.
Bad wording there I suspect. Having been majorly harassed by groups of teenaged boys, I tend to welcome things that stop them gathering! Then I have a fight with myself about civil liberties.
I don't think it's accidental bad wording, however, I think it's been a fairly consistent press approach that the lower orders shouldn't be allowed to gather or have fun. Not that I'm under-rating the feeling harrassed thing, cos I've had that as well in the past...
I'm working on the cynical assumption that the 'taking away the driving licence and car' thing isn't actually to be taken at face value, but is calculated to provoke the supposed yob into reacting angrily enough that they can be arrested there and then for GBH on the earhole. I can't otherwise see that suddenly stranding a very pissed-off youth some way from home without transport is going to result in a decrease in anti-social behaviour.
And I love:
'Sir Ian, who has the backing of other chief constables, said that the police action would be temporary until the offender appeared in court and denied that it was a step towards a police state.'
I know that's not what it means, but I have visions of hoodies standing before magistrates solomnly intoning 'I do not live in a police state', and getting let off.
Someone give that journalist a comma, quick!
Curiousity: Why do you want a constitution?
My observation about constitutions:
1) They merely consist of a series of "meta laws" about making laws -- writing this down doesn't help much as they can be changed if necessary, it's just difficult.
2) There is no reason to believe that a constitution will be any more in line with your political beliefs than the current system of muddle and precedent.
3) A written constitution induces mental weakness in the occupants of a country. Americans seem to equate "unconstitutional" with "morally wrong" -- nobody but an imbecile would claim something is immoral because it is illegal. However, many Americans seem to argue from first principles that is something is unconstitutional it must somehow be morally wrong.
So, why on earth do you WANT a constitution? I think it would do much more harm than good.
You mean the current frappe` of Magna Charta, writs, decrees, precedents and occasional beheadings isn't clear and stable enough? Why spoil all the fun by writing it all down and putting limits on it? Besides, wait around long enough and eventually the gov't gets big and callous enough to consider itself beyond abiding by its constitution. Not that that'd ever happen anyplace we're familiar with...
Pleeth han me that crobar; my tongue'th thuck in my cheek!