On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:18:45 +0100, Richard
wrote in message
:

Interestingly, a cyclist was held to be at fault when he hit a
pedestrian who stepped out into the road into his path having "looked"
and seen no "traffic".

Do you have a reference for this, please?

Howard does: http://www.motorcarnage.org.uk/motor...e/justice.html
and look for Richard Brady

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:44:02 +0100, Mrs Redboots
wrote in message
:

Surely Nick
was just introducing a red herring into the original thread, something
we all do from time to time.

Arguably so, but given that it was (a) a tired restatement of
well-rehearsed arguments and (b) cross-posted to the cycling
newsgroup, it was unlikely ever to be seen as such. We have become
very tired on urc of hearing these arguments used to excuse all
dangerous behaviour by other road users, call for enforcement against
cyclists in preference to other road users who by any measure pose
much more danger, to call for cyclists to be subjected to absurd and
draconian regulation, or even simply to undermine the right of
cyclists to use the road at all.

So maybe it was a reflex brain fart on the part of the PP, but given
his subsequent defence of his posting I am inclined to think not.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

In message , at 13:48:39 on
Tue, 26 Oct 2004, David Hansen
remarked:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:50:02 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
wrote this:-

The Home Office came up with a way of oppressing people, called RIP
and pushed it through the Westminster rogues gallery. If some bod
decides to impose a gaging order then a victim of this "law" cannot
tell their lover, religious advisor or anyone else that their
communications are being read by some official.

I fear you are conflating the powers to intercept communications, and
that to demand a key if they turn out to be encrypted.

Not in this case:-)

My wording of "communications are being read by some official" is
not precise, but referred to some official reading encrypted
communications, by whatever means.

Close, but just because your key has been acquired doesn't mean it's
being used to read your communications. Unless you only use the key for
communications; and even then it might just one or two that access is
required to, not all of them; and even then, they may have been acquired
by a search warrant and not interception.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:47:37 on Tue, 26 Oct
2004, Richard remarked:
(Parts of) RIPA are overly restrictive. The effect on criminals will
be minimal; the effect on the general public will be widespread
repression.

I don't think most of the General Public's communications (even if
encrypted) are of enough interest that the recipients will have the GAK
powers applied.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:46:29 on Tue, 26 Oct
2004, Arthur Clune remarked:
: So you like crooks being able to tip off their comrades? Very good.

And you think they won't anyway?

Just like they'll rob banks anyway (haven't we been round this block
once before?)

The trouble will all this sort of stuff is that it's always a trade off
between the risks to the innocent and being able to convict the guilty.
I think RIPA (and a lot of more recent developments) draw the line in
the wrong place.

RIPA draws the line in a place decided by other legislation. The crime
has to be serious enough. If you are paranoid enough to think that a
future government will make insert your pet activity here illegal, and
subject to GAK, then that new law could just as easily have the GAK
within it.
--
Roland Perry

(Parts of) RIPA are overly restrictive. The effect on criminals will
be minimal; the effect on the general public will be widespread
repression.

I don't think most of the General Public's communications (even if
encrypted) are of enough interest that the recipients will have the GAK
powers applied.

headbutts brick wall You've somewhat missed the point. Although Roland
is being slightly hysterical, the effect of parts of RIPA _could_ be
widespread repression, which is why we should deny that opportunity to this
future governments. Slippery slope and thin end of the wedge may be
cliches, but they are almost always valid.

then that new law could just as easily have the GAK
within it.

Nope.

In message , at
13:49:34 on Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Mark Thompson
remarked:
(Parts of) RIPA are overly restrictive. The effect on criminals will
be minimal; the effect on the general public will be widespread
repression.

I don't think most of the General Public's communications (even if
encrypted) are of enough interest that the recipients will have the GAK
powers applied.

headbutts brick wall You've somewhat missed the point. Although Roland
is being slightly hysterical, the effect of parts of RIPA _could_ be
widespread repression, which is why we should deny that opportunity to this
future governments. Slippery slope and thin end of the wedge may be
cliches, but they are almost always valid.

Any law can be misused - why pick on RIPA especially? And while the GAK
part hasn't even got a draft Code of Practice, speculation is moot.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
14:37:45 on Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Mark Thompson
remarked:
then that new law could just as easily have the GAK
within it.

Nope.

err, yes it could.

See the Social Security Fraud Act, which has a cut.n.paste acquisition
of comms data section, post-RIPA.
--
Roland Perry

then that new law could just as easily have the GAK
within it.

Nope.

err, yes it could.

By nope I mean it's harder to get dodgy legislation through the Lords.
They tend to amend out many of the more silly bits.

Getting a law through that refers to a bit of existing legislation is going
to be easier than introducing the dodgy bit of legislation with every law
that you want covered by it.