Posts by M A Walters 40 publicly visible posts • joined 1 Nov 2007
Technically correct, although most drivers will stop before a pedestrian steps out and most pedestrians will wait till the driver stopped:
Highway Code Section 195
Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing
- look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross
- you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing
Note the "when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"
@Gordon Ross - Yes, I suppose you are right. Especially the ones who can't cycle properly. Far too many of those at the moment. They will learn sooner or later (or become organ donors in the process).
@handle - I agree with your eco-car comment (especially in line with London's congestion charge), but that doesn't excuse such blatant misuse of road space as can be seen on the Hills Road bridge. Have you actually seen it??
Taken at face value, Cambs County councillors are actually doing the right thing, listening to their people, etc.
In reality, everything is being done as if to increase congestion in the city. Most recently, namely: re-timing the traffic lights at Hills Rd/Cherry Hinton Rd junction (a very busy junction during rush hours) and the removal of 2 lanes (1 each direction) off the Hills Rd bridge. Both done under the guise of cyclists' safety.
Don't get me wrong, cyclists are entitled to use the road notwithstanding them not paying road tax, but half the available road space? Come on - they are not tractors!!
I think the bishop has a point, to some extent. The problem is not with social networking per se, but with the way how some people use it.
I don't think there is anything wrong with social networking, provided it's not a substitute for real relationships (which is what the bishop seems to imply). For instance, I use FB to keep in touch with my old friends whom I probably wouldn't contact as regularly (using the term loosely) otherwise.
The problem with FB is with flattening of social relationships/connections: everyone's a "friend", even though in real world, you have close friends, not-so-close friends, acquaintances and so forth. I suppose one could set up FB groups for them, but I never bothered. I share very little info on FB, just because I wouldn't necessarily be comfortable sharing pictures and comments (!) with just everyone on my FB friendlist.
And then, some people just add "friends" for... I don't know... numbers?
If someone starts treating these "friends" as proper friends, I can see a problem here. And hence the time bomb, or a grenade, I suppose.
It is a very sad time we live in, where we have to rely on unelected Lords to protect our freedoms yet again. I suppose because they are life peers and they cannot get kicked out of the House of Lords, they can vote with their conscience, as opposed to whipped MPs in Commons who need to protect their political career.
Without knowing specifics about the case and its evidence, it's difficult to make an informed judgement. The question is, who has the burden of proof, Halifax or its customer. If it's the petitioner (ie the customer), then the question is why Halifax destroyed the evidence. If it's the respondent (ie Halifax), then the ruling makes no sense at all.
Basically, Halifax cannot prove that the customer made the transaction, nor can they prove that he didn't. The customer cannot prove that he didn't either, though. I am wondering if anyone actually bothered checking CCTV in the store where the card (or its clone) was used, surely we have enough of those in this country...
While I may think that kitty bag is a quite tasteless, probably because I could never do something like that to my pet (albeit as Sarah said above, the bag is quite stylish), she's done nothing wrong in the eyes of law. All these environMENTALists need to get a life. Sometimes I think they would rather kill people but not animals - where's the logic there? Something in their head is messed up.
While perhaps some things I consider tasteless, amoral, sick, whatever, one cannot (and should not) legislate morality. Otherwise, we are back in the dark ages. And this vigilantism )or wannabe vigilantism) ought to be punished severely.
Huntingdon Life Sciences springs to memory somehow.
That depends. Has the person concerned been convicted of a crime by a court of law? The answer in the example you've given is no. So, no, there is no legitimate reason to keep that person's DNA.
As a country with the rule of law, we don't tolerate vigilantes (for example) regardless of how right their actions may be. Same applies here. Perhaps sometimes our perception of law and justice differs, but that can be resolved by ensuring CPS decide prosecutions on merit, not by "innocent UNTIL proven guilty", but "innocent UNLESS proven guilty". ... By the court of law, not a politician.
If the sample was there for elimination, why is it still there?
UK should follow the US in the treatment of elimination samples: they can be used only for elimination purposes and not entered into any database.
A recent (~3 yrs ago) case in the States showed that elimination samples erroneously stored onto the database (I think it was CODIS, but may have been a state database) cannot be admitted as lawfully collected and as such cannot be used for prosecutions of unconnected crimes.
ECHR ruling seems to suggest a similar approach.
Mostly @Random Noise
What PR? If no one's heard of the campaign, like the article says, PR was not that great.
That is, of course, discounting the fact that the yoofs (or is that yobs) that the campaign is aimed that wouldn't bother watching it to begin with and even if you were to hand them out with a personalised DVD they will just stick it in where the sun don't shine.
Sounds like waste of public money... Yet again!
That's all good, as long as 1 person does not end up telling 80 out of the same 100 what is "good for them". At least something like that seems to be happening here in the UK.
Reminds me of "The Greater Good" out of Hot Fuzz (the movie).
PS The AC comment @ 10th November 2008 16:04 GMT is mine, not sure why it got AC'd. Must be the case of twitchy fingers.
Errr no... What you are describing is punitive damages (or exemplary damages over here) - basically they are there to make an example of you to deter others. However, law (even the US law) prohibits their use except in specially defined cases (if I remember my law correctly, it applies to things like gross negligence, profiteering etc).
> Could that happen this side of the pond?
Ignorance of (criminal) law is no defence, however, this is a copyright infringement lawsuit, so damages are assessed differently.
As for the right against self-incrimination on this side of the pond, it's actually worse than over there. Just think of the speed camera appeal that got rejected by the Lords - points cannot be assessed on those kind of violations in North America (yes, both USA and Canada) unless the photo can positively identify the person who was actually driving (ie clear photograph).
I can't believe Apple cannot get this right. I got iPhone 3G (for the "unlimited" 3G data transfer, rather than the phone itself - although I am starting to like it) and decided to try out the MobileMe app.
It's the most ridiculous piece of software AND a poor service. I ended up getting a hosted Exchange account and syncing it that way - works *a lot* better. Errr... actually it works the way it's supposed to.
Now I hope they dont charge me after my MMe "trial" ends, because using it was, indeed, a trial. Subscription cancelled.
> But lets face it travel is only one of the uses of a passport. After all its a guaranteed form of ID for many places, of which I would expect 99.9% do not have the technology used to verify a passports legitimacy.
I am surprised not many people picked up on this one. I thought the same when I first saw the article. After all, these blank passports *will* be blocked at the border. Even our inept government can do that.
However, go to the bank or steal someone's identity - that's where the real market for these things is. After all, who would question an authentic (!) British passport - we all know how it looks like, and their copy (or rather 3000 copies) is not a fake.
SOCA's biggest problem is funding. When it was set up, the bright idea was to make it the UK's FBI. A quick look at the funding tells a different story.
With entry level salary for an "agent" barely above £20k and supervisory agents being paid £35k, it's a big joke. You cannot solve serious crime without serious funding. Both in terms of "investing in people" and technology.
Many decent people from National High Tech squad had to leave because they were offered pay cuts when joining SOCA. This is just the continuation of an agency doomed to instant failure.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
