have the yanks got this one right?

[churchfcrules]

Driver Made To Wear Idiot Sign As Punishment

she was caught repeatedley driving on the pavement to get around a school bus, so has been ordered to stand on the corner of the street weraring a sign "only an idiot would drive on the pavement"
i am sure we would never impose this here, a breech of human rights no doubt

i sometimes think that punishments like this would serve the public better than 3 points and a fixed penalty.

we could never get away with it whilst we are shackled to our eu masters in strasbourg/brussels.

but isnt this just a 21 century "sentanced to the stocks", and if so do you believe it to be good or not

i would support something like this, whole heartedley.

imagine shoplifters ordered to stand outside the shop wearing a sign, a drunk and disorderly outside the pub on a saturday night.

its not often i doth my cap to the colonies, but this is one of em!

[Boeing Guy]

Yes i think they have.
Have you heard of Sheriff Joe?
About:Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio
This is a man who makes inmates wear pink on the chain gangs. Built a 'tent city' to house inmates, he reasoned that seeing soilders were suffering worse conditions in Iraq, then the prosoners should share somd of it.

Now if we had a Sheriff Joe as a candidate for Police Commisioner, i would vote for him

[churchfcrules]

yes i have,
and i totally agree, from what i saw they volunteer to go on the chain gang and if they complete it without incident get a reduced sentance,

you got the plane, bring him over, there is a job waiting for him!

[cashman]

No question at all to me, the yanks have got it spot on in this instance.

[churchfcrules]

Originally Posted by cashman

No question at all to me, the yanks have got it spot on in this instance.

Cashy, the buntins are coming out of the cupboard, the wife is doing the catering, the moet is on ice, and the blue plaque is on order

WE AGREE ON SUMMAT!!!!

[Margaret Pilkington]

in the states they are not handcuffed to 'yuman rights' like we are.......so they can punish, how they see fit...and if it deters others from doing the same thing, then it works.

Over here, we have bowed to the desires and whims of the bleeding heart liberals for decades. That isn't to say that it is too late to change..but to change...you have to want that change enough to fight for it.

[churchfcrules]

i am trying to remember "the worm that turned" i think it was the two ronnies, i could be massivley wrong, but it was like an ongoing weekly sketch, that showed a very british revolution one in wish we still had a queen, but communist

sounds about right for us, always envied the french (one of the few), that go out on the streets for just about anything, the only time we get any kind of protest it turns into "a riot", and any one envolved is branded a thug, an upstart and damned by the media and society is led down the path of believing it to be wrong.

the only voice we have is the ballot box, but with the majority of the public losing faith in "our democracy" i see little hope, so we will just sit here and tap out our frustrations on our keyboards

police commisioner for example, all political party candidates, not one "man of the street"

corrupt, corrupt from the bottom to the top, and they tell me its the law- the levellers

[Margaret Pilkington]

Church...if voting really changed anything, they(the powers that be) would stop us from doing it.
Voting is just to let us think we can influence things....and also so that they can blame someone else when it all goes pear shaped....and so that there is infighting between the electorate.......divide and rule....the other thing is while we are fighting amongst ourselves 'they' can pretty much get away with anything.

We are fed 'the pap of untruth, the bread of half truth' we are lied to as if we were five year olds, by politicians who have no interest in what is best for us, or for that matter the country.

I really don't see it changing anytime soon....unless there is an uprising...a revolution....but everything is weighted against the peasants.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

in the states they are not handcuffed to 'yuman rights' like we are.......so they can punish, how they see fit...and if it deters others from doing the same thing, then it works.

Over here, we have bowed to the desires and whims of the bleeding heart liberals for decades. That isn't to say that it is too late to change..but to change...you have to want that change enough to fight for it.

I can't agree with this ... they can't "punish [as] they see fit". They are bound by the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, and, more recently, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The legal and civil rights of every US citizen are more than well protected by law. In fact, they have all the rights and freedoms that you have in the UK. What they don't have is some outside agency like the EU calling more and more of the shots. What complicates things in the US ... or seems to complicate things if you don't understand the system ... it that they are the United States of America, and those States, like Canadian Provinces, have a degree of autonomy that some in the world find hard to understand.

[Wynonie Harris]

Seems like a good idea to me. Probably seems like a good idea to the majority of the British public. But even if the government wanted to introduce it, they wouldn't be allowed to because the European Court of Human Rights would put a stop to it. In other words a foreign court decides what we can and can't do in our own country.

Mainstream politicos, please come on here and justify. Sssshhhh....

[Margaret Pilkington]

That is what I meant Eric...that the states have their own rules...autonomy.
I was using a bit of literary licence when I said they could punish 'as they see fit'.

The punishments(or correction, if you prefer that word) seem to be more appropriate than what the judiciary are allowed to mete out here.

Prison here seems a more pleasant option that some old folks nursing homes, where the incumbents are paying 600 quid a week for their 'care'.
Perhaps we should be charging prisoners for their accommodation and meals.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Oh, and on the subject of meals......it is interesting to note that prisoners have more money spent on their meals than do many sick people in hopsital.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

That is what I meant Eric...that the states have their own rules...autonomy.
I was using a bit of literary licence when I said they could punish 'as they see fit'.

The punishments(or correction, if you prefer that word) seem to be more appropriate than what the judiciary are allowed to mete out here.

Prison here seems a more pleasant option that some old folks nursing homes, where the incumbents are paying 600 quid a week for their 'care'.
Perhaps we should be charging prisoners for their accommodation and meals.

The autonomy thing can get a little confusing ... the "fry 'em or hang 'em" supporters on AccyWeb often talk about the death penalty in the US, probably without realizing that 17 US States, and the District of Columbia do not have the death penalty ... Wisconsin hasn't had the dp since 1853. Not only that, some of the death penalty states don't use it all that often. Can get confusing when you are driving too. I can turn right on a red light in Ontario (remember we drive on the other side of the road), but in Quebec I would get a ticket. If I were convicted of breaking an Ontario law, or if I received a sentence of less than two years on a federal offence, I would do time in a Provincial pen ... If I break a municipal traffic law in Kingston right now, I could avoid the fine and the points on my licence by making a contribution to the "Toys for Kids" drive. Anyway, you can't really think in terms of American Law without taking into consideration State and local laws ... there are still lots of dry (as in "alcohol free") counties in the states ... good old Jack Daniels bourbon is actually distilled in a dry county ... go figure, eh. They can make it there, but they have to go somewhere else to drink it.

[accyman]

is it state law and federal law they operate on because having two sets of rules seems to be a bad idea its like having lancashire laws,yorkshire laws etc then a uk law as well to adhere to.They say one nation under god but perhaps they should try one nation under one set of law?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by accyman

is it state law and federal law they operate on because having two sets of rules seems to be a bad idea its like having lancashire laws,yorkshire laws etc then a uk law as well to adhere to.They say one nation under god but perhaps they should try one nation under one set of law?

It makes sense when you think of Federalism as a way of uniting distinctly different regiions of a large country, not to mention about 700 distinct First Nations in Canada. In other words, when Canada became Canada and when the United States became the United States, deals had to be cut so that all the Provinces and all the States which signed up would be more or less happy with what was put together. Once the initial deal is brokered, new Provinces or States can sign up. Newfoundland, for example, didn't join Confederation until 1949 ... in both World Wars, contingents from Newfoundland did not fight as part of the Canadian Forces. And when I was born, and for 14 years after, there were only 48 States in the Union; Alaska and Hawaii were granted statehood in, I believe, 1959. Both the Constitution of the United States of America and the British North America Act of 1867 lay out in great detail those powers and rights which belong to the Federal Government and those which belong to Provincial and State governments. Of course, there is the complexity surrounding residual powers ... but I have probably bored you enough already