Originally Posted by bornfree:
Youcanhandlethetruth, I wasn't mocking conspiracy theorists, I don't regard this as a derogatory term, I just offered it as an alternative answer.
My own view is, if - if - a government were deliberately planning to destroy a nation's morale, these petty injustices and constant attacks on our civil liberties would be an excellent way of achieving that aim.

I didn't think you were bornfree, no worries.

I was directing it towards the "know it all" people that flatly refuse to consider that they may be true and refuse to even look into them.

Whether this is you or not, I haven't a clue, though you seem fairly open minded.

Sorry if it sounded like my rant was aimed at you anyway.

I think it's more than just a nation's morale, I think it's probably getting the public trained for slavery.

Sounds unbelievable doesn't it ? But it's a crazy world we live in so.....
[Rep]

Yes, I consider all of the conspiracy theories, it's a phrase that it too often used to deride people and their ideas.
If you think about it, `conspiracy' isn't a theory, it's something that we constantly experience. Don't certain governments and organisations constantly conspire to persuade us to accept their ideas?
Quite a few people, not just people on this forum but some politicians and international political commentators, believe that the BBC's treatment of some news stories and social issues is a conspiracy, a conspiracy to mould attitudes.
Again, some people, including some politicians, believe that socialism is a conspiracy, a conspiracy to persuade us to alter our attitudes and beliefs to fit an ideolology.
It's strange you should mention my `destroy a nation's morale' line. A while after I wrote it I thought that it was a little too vague.
But Saturday night beckoned..
You say that it's aimed at enslaving us. Interesting. I think that it's certainly aimed at giving the state a greater role in our lives, at making us subservient to the state, there can be no doubt about that.
Does this amount to slavery? Yes it does, to some people, in fact to quite a few people. And again, these people aren't just people on this forum.
My view - and the view of many other `ordinary' people, not just politicians, is that governments should govern lightly rather than heavy-handedly. Labour hasn't `got' this, it believes that constant legislation creates social stability, when in fact it creates the opposite - it creates social instability.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Captain Nasty:
It wasnt his van it was the councils

Where does it say that?

From what I've seen in a number of reports it makes it clear it was HIS van.

Loath though I am to admit it the guy got off light.

It is almost 100% certain that the terms of the motor insurance that the guy holds if his van is insured as a private vehicle will only permit it to be used traveling to and from a FIXED place of work.

Since he uses it to travel to and from jobs at various locations he’s not inured and so he could have been nicked under section 143(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 with all the costs THAT would have entailed.

If on the other hand he has business cover added that allows him to use it to travel to and from places of work it then becomes a work place under the act and if it ever is used to carry a passenger, even when being used for social or pleasure use, it is now by law a place wherein smoking is prohibited.

In short, he’s stuffed both ways but got off lightly with a fixed penalty ticket.

It then opens up the matter of smoking in a car when the car is used to travel to other than a fixed work place.

In such a case it is plain that unless the insurance cover is extended to cover this situation a driver will find himself uninsured. If he extends his insurance cover it may then be that his car becomes a part of his workplace and any passengers carried … no smoking in it. Ever.

Another example of badly drafted law by New Labour.
[Rep]