buckthesystem

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4696439a12.html The Australian government has issued its first licence allowing scientists to create cloned human embryos to try and obtain embryonic stem cells. The in vitro-fertilisation firm Sydney IVF was granted the licence and reportedly has access to 7200 human eggs for its research. If the firm is successful it would be a world first, the Australian government's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which granted the licence, said on Wednesday. Scientists in other countries have made stem cells they believe are similar to embryonic cells using a variety of techniques, but none have been able to extract embryonic stem cells from cloned human embryos. An Australian ban on the research, known as therapeutic cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer, was lifted in December 2006 after a rare conscience vote in the national parliament. But the use of excess IVF embryos and the creation and use of other embryos in research is restricted by law through national legislation. Human cloning for reproductive purposes is banned. Chair of the NHMRC's licensing committee, Dr John Findlay, said Sydney IVF's research would be closely monitored. "They have been given a licence to do therapeutic cloning," Findlay told Reuters, adding the scientists are not licenced to reach the foetal stage. "They can go to the stage called blastocyst. They must stop at that point," he said. The blastocyst is a very early-stage embryo not yet implanted into the womb. Findlay said scientists will try and create stem cells from patients who have abnormalities or create stem cell lines which will be compatible with patients which have given the cells. Initially, any stem cells extracted would be used to test new drugs to fight diseases such as muscular dystrophy and Huntington's disease, and later therapeutic cloning would be used to produce body tissue matched to patients. The director of Australians for Ethical Stem Cell Research, David van Gend, criticised the issuing of the licence, saying new technology meant cloning was no longer necessary. "We have regulations in Australia such that the abuses of cloning wouldn't happen here, we will not get live birth cloning," he told local radio. "We won't get cloning right through to the foetal stage in order to use them for organ transplants, but if we teach the world how to clone you can be quite sure it will be used in less rigorous jurisdictions." Somatic cell nuclear transfer is a technique in which DNA from the nucleus of an unfertilised egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of an adult cell such as a skin cell. The technique can be used to create cloned embryos in order to derive embryonic stem cells for therapeutic purposes, but can also be used for reproductive cloning. There are several types of stem cells. Embryonic stem cells, made from days-old embryos, are considered the most powerful because they can give rise to all the cell types in the body. Sydney IVF said only eggs that were unusable for IVF because they were immature or had not been fertilised properly, and which donors had given consent for, would be used in the research. The firm said it will use three different types of cells, embryonic stem cells, cumulus cells attached to the collected eggs, and skin cells, to produce the cloned embryos. Sydney IVF was the first, in 2004, to extract stem cells from Australian IVF embryos, and has since extracted and grown 10 more colonies of embryonic stem cells this way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...berties.ukcrime Panopticon highway Henry Porter guardian.co.uk, Monday September 15 2008 14:30The Every time you travel by road in Britain, your car will be tracked by the police. How many more freedoms will we sacrifice in the name of security? The police ANPR database, which the Guardian today reveals will retain information from 50 million road journeys a day for five years, is a system that was never sanctioned or debated in parliament and which threatens the freedom of movement, assembly and protest. Presented simply as a tool to fight crime and terror by the police, it will become one of the cornerstones of the surveillance state, and will give the police far too much power to track, in real time, the movement of people who may be bound for legitimate demonstrations and protest rallies. Linked with the government's proposals to seize all our communications data to be announced in the Queen's speech this autumn, this move signifies a profound change in our society and an irreversible transfer of power from free individuals to the state. It is not difficult to imagine how the system will be used in times of industrial and political strife. We have already seen how police prevented legitimate demonstration during the first years of the Iraq war and have illegally obstructed protests against the arms trade, and are currently harassing accredited press photographers going about their legitimate business. These are hints of what will come when the police can track the movement of all vehicles, particularly if harsher economic times are accompanied by unrest. The revelations in the Guardian today come from freedom of information requests made to the Home Office. In this context it is important to know that the dealings and discussions in Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), which has been largely responsible for pushing the ANPR system, remain hidden from public scrutiny. Because Acpo has limited company status and is not a public body, it does not have to comply with freedom of information laws. Police officers keep on insisting that these powers will not be abused, but revelations made by another FOI request last week show that the police use surveillance techniques to bully and harass citizens. In Wales, a team of 11 officers took part in a surveillance operation against a 49-year-old police dog handler who claimed he was suffering from depression, a fact established by the Police Medical Appeal Board. Officers from two forces watched his home for months and filmed him at a cost of

http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMol...G37942520080916 City uses DNA to fight dog poop By Avida Landau PETAH TIKVA, Israel (Reuters) - An Israeli city is using DNA analysis of dog droppings to reward and punish pet owners. Under a six-month trial programme launched this week, the city of Petah Tikva, a suburb of Tel Aviv, is asking dog owners to take their animal to a municipal veterinarian, who then swabs its mouth and collects DNA. The city will use the DNA database it is building to match faeces to a registered dog and identify its owner. Owners who scoop up their dogs' droppings and place them in specially marked bins on Petah Tikva's streets will be eligible for rewards of pet food coupons and dog toys. But droppings found underfoot in the street and matched through the DNA database to a registered pet could earn its owner a municipal fine. "My goal is to get the residents involved, and tell them that together, we can make our environment clean," said Tika Bar-On, the city's chief veterinarian who came up with the idea for the DNA experiment. Bar-On said the DNA database could also help veterinarians research genetic diseases in dogs, investigate canine pedigree and identify stray animals, replacing the need for electronic chip identification. "The sky is the limit on how far we can take this," she said. So far, Bar-On said, residents have "reacted positively to the programme and are cooperating because they want their neighbourhood to be clean". She said Petah Tikva would consider making it mandatory for pet owners to provide DNA samples from their dogs if the trial programme is successful. (Editing by Robert Hart) .

http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci...?nclick_check=1 Student accused of perjury will stand trial Jennifer Squires - Sentinel Staff Writer Cabrillo College student accused of perjury for checking the wrong box on a California Department of Motor Vehicles form in January 2007 will go to trial, a judge ruled Monday. But Nathan Knoerl, also known as Nathan Pope, will be free on his own recognizance, Judge Samuel Stevens decided. Knoerl had been held on $100,000 bail -- 20 times the normal amount for perjury -- since his arrest by FBI agents in Southern California last month. "Under the totality of the circumstances, obviously the judge feels he made a decision in the best interest of the community and in accordance with the law," Capt. Steve Clark of the Santa Cruz police said. Police have not said why they requested the high bail when they obtained the arrest warrant in August. However, Knoerl has lived in a Riverside Avenue house that was twice raided during the ongoing investigation into violent animal rights protests in Santa Cruz. No arrests have been made in the February home invasion attack and July fire bombings that targeted three UC Santa Cruz researchers. "There is absolutely no connection between this case and the animal rights case," Knoerl's attorney, Doug Fox, said outside of court. The perjury charge against Knoerl surfaced during the probe of the attacks and was pursued by a DMV inspector, who testified during Monday's preliminary hearing. Inspector James Laughlin said Knoerl obtained a driver's license in September 2003, then applied for and received a state identification card under the name "Nathan Pope" in January 2007. On that application, Knoerl checked the "no" box in response to a question about possessing other government IDs in other names. Prosecutor Barbara Rizzieri said that action was perjury. Fox argued that his client didn't perjure himself because it's unclear if Knoerl would have been denied an ID card had he checked the "yes" box. "The application itself is not false. It is who he is," Fox said. He pointed out that identifying information was the same on both the driver's license and ID card. Fox also said his client has state-issued documents in both names, including a passport issued to "Nathan Pope" and signed by "Nathan Knoerl" with a note stating he also goes by the name Knoerl. Knoerl's father's last name is Pope but his mother, Britni Knoerl, remarried when her son was 5 years old and he has used both surnames throughout his life, his mother testified. Knoerl has also had a UCSC student ID card in the name "Matt Matthews," Rizzieri said. She didn't know when he had obtained the ID or if he was ever a UCSC student. Rizzieri said it's difficult to track Knoerl in the legal system due to his two surnames. The perjury case is filed under the name "Knoerl" while an April conviction for stealing textbooks is in the name "Pope." He is on probation for petty theft. Perjury is a felony punishable by two to four years in state prison. Knoerl was released from County Jail on Monday afternoon and apparently went home to Oceanside with his family. He returns to court Sept. 30.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2537.asp Photo Ticket Cameras to Track Drivers Nationwide Vendors plan to add spy technology to existing red light camera and speed camera installations. Private companies in the US are hoping to use red light cameras and speed cameras as the basis for a nationwide surveillance network similar to one that will be active next year in the UK. Redflex and American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the top two photo enforcement providers in the US, are quietly shopping new motorist tracking options to prospective state and local government clients. Redflex explained the company's latest developments in an August 7 meeting with Homestead, Florida officials. "We are moving into areas such as homeland security on a national level and on a local level," Redflex regional director Cherif Elsadek said. "Optical character recognition is our next roll out which will be coming out in a few months -- probably about five months or so." The technology would be integrated with the Australian company's existing red light camera and speed camera systems. It allows officials to keep full video records of passing motorists and their passengers, limited only by available hard drive space and the types of cameras installed. To gain public acceptance, the surveillance program is being initially sold as an aid for police looking to solve Amber Alert cases and locate stolen cars. "Imagine if you had 1500 or 2000 cameras out there that could look out for the partial plate or full plate number across the 21 states where we do business today," Elsadek said. "This is the next step for our technology." ATS likewise is promoting motorist tracking technologies. In a recent proposal to operate 200 speed cameras for the Arizona state police, the company explained that its ticketing cameras could be integrated into a national vehicle tracking database. This would allow a police officer to simply enter a license plate number into a laptop computer and receive an email as soon as a speed camera anywhere in the state recognized that plate. Such programs would be fully consistent with existing law on searches and seizures. In the 2003 case Washington v. William Bradley Jackson, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that police could not use a physical GPS tracking device to monitor a suspect's movements without first obtaining a warrant. No warrant would be needed or restrictions applied to license plate tracking systems which do not require any physical contact. Instead, individual police officers could monitor the movements of suspected criminals or even their wives and neighbors at any time. In the past, police databases have been used to intimidate innocent motorists. An Edmonton, Canada police sergeant, for example, found himself outraged after he read columnist Kerry Diotte criticize his city's photo radar operation in the Edmonton Sun newspaper. The sergeant looked up Diotte's personal information, and, without the assistance of electronic scanners, ordered his subordinates to "be on the lookout" for Diotte's BMW. Eventually a team of officers followed Diotte to a local bar where they hoped to trap the journalist and accuse him of driving under the influence of alcohol. Diotte took a cab home and the officers' plan was exposed after tapes of radio traffic were leaked to the press. Police later cleared themselves of any serious wrong-doing following an extensive investigation. In the UK, officials are planning to dramatically expand the use of average speed cameras that track cars over distances as great as six miles. Records on all vehicle movements taken from a nationwide network of cameras will be stored for five years in a central government Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) server, allowing police to keep tabs on criminals and political opponents. Work on the data center in north London began in 2005 and officials expect real-time, nationwide tracking capability to be available by January.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.j...15/mdata115.xml Police will keep driving records for five years By Sarah Knapton Last Updated: 12:01am BST 15/09/2008 Police plan to map all journeys made by drivers on major roads and store the data for five years. A national network of roadside cameras will be able to read 50 million number plates each day enabling officers to reconstruct the movements of motorists. But civil rights campaigners have questioned why the data needs to be kept for so long and want reassurances on who will be allowed to access the information. The project relies on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras which pinpoint the time and location of all vehicles on the road. Police originally said they only wanted the information for two years but were forced to admit the five year plan following a Freedom of Information Act inquiry. It revealed the database will be able to store as many as 18 billion license plates by 2009. Thousands of CCTV cameras have been converted to read ANPR data while mobile cameras have been installed in patrol cars and unmarked vehicles at the sides of roads. Even police helicopters are equipped with the new equipment. The director of Privacy International last night said the five year record was "unnecessary and disproportionate" and has lodged a complaint with the Information Commissioners Office. Simon Davies from Privacy International said the database would give police "extraordinary powers of surveillance." The Association of Chief Police Officers said all forces, bar two, would be linked to the database by the end of the year. Simon Bynre, who heads ACPO's ANPR policy said: "Experience has show there are very strong link between illegal use of motor vehicles on the road and other types of serious crime." It comes as the Department of Transport announced plans to roll out average speed cameras on roads. The cameras, which prevent motorists from slowing down to avoid being caught by traditional systems, are currently only used through roadworks. Brian MacDowell, spokesman for the Association of British Drivers said: "Drivers will be staring at their speedometers rather than concentrating on the road ahead. It is even more a case with these cameras because you know you are being clocked at two different points. "Speed cameras have produced a state of war between drivers and the Government and it will jut go on and on. "

So I guess it is the end for these women right away. Unless of course they can flee to somewhere else: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...ear-780522.html A question of honour Police say 17,000 women are victims every year Ministers are stepping up the fight against so-called 'honour' crime and forced marriages. Detectives say official statistics are 'merely the tip of the iceberg' of this phenomenon. Brian Brady investigates (more at link) There's also this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...hop-780510.html Adopting sharia within British law would be 'disastrous', Lord Carey tells his successor as Archbishop By Ian Griggs The Archbishop of Canterbury's predecessor joined the chorus of criticism against him last night for his comments on Islamic law. George Carey accused Dr Rowan Williams of "overstating" the case for accommodating sharia. But he said that Dr Williams should not be forced to quit over his remarks. These articles were in February, what has changed since then?

Well i think that would be "s h a p l i e r ", coz "s h a p e l i e r" would be pronounced "sha/ pelle/ iyer". Unless of course you MEANT sha/ pelle/ iyer".

People have ignored this for far too long, it is real, and it is a genuine threat: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/sep/th...o-come-prel.pdf Press release: Embargoed until 00:01, Thursday 11 September 2008 New report on EU security policy from Statewatch The Shape of Things to Come by Tony Bunyan The EU is currently developing a new five year strategy for justice and home affairs and security policy for 2009-2014. The proposals set out by the shadowy

With the grant from Homeland Security, it just had to be about more than "car theft". http://cmdmedia.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/f...goes-high-tech/ Fight Against Car Theft Goes High-Tech ELIZABETH

I guess the UK government will do anything, spend any amount of other peoples' money, so as not to look COMPLETELY foolish in the eyes of the rest of the world. And yet, I wondered when the travellers of the world were going to get an apology for the airlines causing many, many hassels, inconvenience and gross irritation. Not only is that not going to happen, but: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...ce-retrial.html Seven men accused of liquid bomb plot WILL face retrial By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 11:43 PM on 13th September 2008 Seven men accused of plotting to blow up planes by smuggling bombs in their hand luggage and detonating them mid-flight will face a retrial. The first trial ended on Monday, with three of the men - Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Assad Sarwar and Tanvir Hussain - convicted of conspiracy to murder. However, a jury failed to reach a verdict on four other men after becoming deadlocked over the key allegation that the plotters intended to down transatlantic jets. An eighth man was cleared of all charges. The decision by Sir Ken Macdonald, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to retry the seven - including those already found guilty of conspiracy to murder - came after a war of words broke out over the case's failure. Politicians queried the wisdom of the former home secretary John Reid's comments in the summer of 2006 when he said the attack would have led to a loss of life on an 'unprecedented scale'. The CIA has also been blamed for forcing Britain's hand in making arrests too early after they instructed the Pakistani authorities to arrest a key suspect there. Prosecutors and police met yesterday afternoon to discuss the outcome of the five-month trial. The seven men to be retried are Ali, 27, Sarwar, 28, Hussain, 27, Ibrahim Savant, 27, Arafat Waheed Khan, 27, Waheed Zaman, 24, and Umar Islam, 30. They will all be retried on a charge of conspiring to murder 'persons unknown by the detonation of improvised explosive devices on board transatlantic passenger aircraft' between January 1 and August 11 2006. Four of them - Savant, Khan, Zaman and Islam - will also be tried again on a general charge of conspiracy to murder between the same dates. The jury convicted Ali, Sarwar and Hussain of this charge by a majority of 10 to two, but could not agree verdicts for the other men. An eighth man, Mohammed Gulzar, 27, was cleared of all charges and cannot face a retrial. Air travellers were thrown into chaos after police swooped on the alleged east London-based bomb plotters on August 9 2006. New rules introduced the following day resulted in hundreds of cancelled flights and massive queues at Britain's airports. Virgin Atlantic and British Airways have called for a review of restrictions on carrying liquids and gels in hand luggage on aircraft. But the Government has said they must be maintained despite the jury's inconclusive verdicts.The defendants are: Ali, of Prospect Hill, Walthamstow, east London; Sarwar, of Walton Drive, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire; Hussain, of Nottingham Road, Leyton, east London; Savant, of Denver Road, Stoke Newington, north London; Khan, of Farnan Avenue, Walthamstow; Zaman, of Queen's Road, Walthamstow; and Islam, aka Brian Young, of Bushey Road, Plaistow, east London.

wow. just wow. this totally amazes me, even from you. it's dishonest to ticket people for running red lights, or for driving 90-to-nothing on a 45mph street? please tell me i'm reading you wrong. i know you don't have much appreciation for government, and in some cases, i agree with you. but do you think total anarchy would be better? why do you consider it extortion to fine people for breaking laws? it's not as if those same people didn't AGREE to pay the fine if they committed the violation! they know the consequences, they accept the risk, and you call it stealing from them to enforce what they already agreed to? i still think they should sent tickets 100% of the time. period. it would make people drive more safely. including myself. i would be horribly inconvenienced if i started getting camera tickets, but i would not in any way think i was being extorted. i'm willing to accept the consequences of my actions. aren't you? driving is not a "right". it is a privilege. and no i'm not just parroting some whacked out dept. of motor vehicles spokesperson. there are responsibilities that go along with the privilege of being able to drive. and when you take that driving test, the written exam, and sign your name on the dotted line as you receive your license, you are putting your name on the line saying you understand the laws and agree to abide by them, or that you are willing to pay the penalty if you choose to do whatever you want. I always know when you start a post with "wow" that you are going to follow it by some very refutable statement, and totally (deliberately, maybe) misconstrue a statement I have made so that you can exaggerate it as much as possible and make it sound really radical and unreasonable. Did I say "it's dishonest to 'ticket' people for running red lights, or driving 90-to-nothing on a 45mph street"??????????? What I was saying is that it is MOST DECIDEDLY DISHONEST to extort money from people accusing them of something when you have no good evidence that they are guilty of what you have alleged!!!!! That's what the original post was about. Also I must take issue with your use of euphemisms like "ticket" - it's not "ticketing", it is "extorting money"! And there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of person C profitting out of an a situation whereby person A's driving affects person B, or no one at all. And I sure didn't ever "agree to pay a fine" at any time in my life. Any fine I have paid has been taken from me with the threat of force. That is actually the definition of "theft", but I'm opting for the term "extortion". As for your statement: "it would make people drive more safely. including myself. i would be horribly inconvenienced if i started getting camera tickets, but i would not in any way think i was being extorted" I guess we are not all so obsequious. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with "consequences for actions" with regard to driving badly or otherwise, the only consequences for actions are that this is the consequence for the stupid actions of people who let these "red light cameras" be used in the first place. Now "driving is not a "right". it is a privilege. and no i'm not just parroting some whacked out dept. of motor vehicles spokesperson. there are responsibilities that go along with the privilege of being able to drive. and when you take that driving test, the written exam, and sign your name on the dotted line as you receive your license, you are putting your name on the line saying you understand the laws and agree to abide by them, or that you are willing to pay the penalty if you choose to do whatever you want." What?? Driving a privilege?? Not a right?? If you really believe that, you have been tricked big time! Somehow the state magnanimously granting citizens the privilege of something so basic as driving doesn't quite "sit right". The supreme court, in the state of Illinois (I guess it would be much the same for any state) in 2005 ruled: "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the roadways and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." And: "The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So I guess it is a RIGHT! After all you pay for the roads, you pay for your car, your insurance etc. etc., so what right does the government have to say that you cannot use your own property? "Freedom of movement" has always been one of our most basic, fundamental "rights" that exist. I have heard people argue that "freedom of movement" only applies to walking or riding a horse, or a horse and dray, but we have to be real and say that today it must be "by the usual means", and what is the "usual means"? Motor vehicles of course? Our modern society demands it. And as for "agreeing to "pay the penalty" etc. "by signing your name on the dotted line when you receive your licence", I sure didn't agree to pay any extortionate "fines" when I first received my licence. In fact I don't remember signing anything. I don't think you did in those days anyway, and I'd be surprised if they do now.

Where did I insult you? I asked you a question and I think it is a fair one considering the constant nagging you do when it comes to anything government/law enforcement. If you don't want to answer it, just say so. Ummm, I'm just calling you out because you seem to have no problems bashing a profession that you've never had to work yourself. I happen to be married to one and I do know about all of the hardships they have to deal with, so yeah, it irks me when people sit so comfortably on the sidelines and do nothing but complain when it's those men and women that are keeping your streets safe. You mean this question: " Is your goal to live in anarchy?" I didn't take that as a real question, because it is such a weird thing to say. I thought you were just being facetious, as nobody could actually be asking someone if they were an anarchist if they KNEW they weren't. I have said many, many times on these boards that I do NOT want an anarchial society. I cannot abide big government, government that exists only to increase its bloated bureaucracy, and is forever seeking new ways of taking money from people so that it can feed its many parasites that are disguised as "government employees". Now don't misinterpret, I meant only that government needs about 30% of the workers that it has. And it tends to be top heavy, everybody wants to call themselves a "manager" or something similar and I believe that government needs a higher percentage of "hands-on" workers. I read somewhere that in America (probably like the rest of the world) about 40% of the working population work for the government in one way or another. I also have a real obsession with HONESTY and DISHONESTY. And this is all about STEALING from the motorist. They are extorting money from motorists when they have no evidence of wrong doing and hoping that he will not notice and just pay up - well even you must see how dishonest that is. The libertarian in me tells me that it is dishonest to "fine" (or penalise in any way) a VICTIMLESS CRIME anyway, and that is just what this is. That is what most motoring offences are really. It is a whole other story when someone hits another car or a pedestrian with their car, or causes a traffic accident to happen, but disobeying an arbitrary rule - such as a speed limit or not wearing a seatbelt - hurts no one, it is just designed to "line the coffers" of government. And if you are going to say "oh, but POTENTIALLY it may hurt someone", well the answer to that is: That's just what it is - potential, nothing more!

Russian armoury. Go to this link, these pictures are priceless. http://englishrussia.com/?p=2025

Illegally dumping garbage. Sorry, man, I didn't see this before I posted.

You know how you find a cow that is standing up and appears to be asleep, and you tip it over. I think this is the same only you do it to flies. Seriously though, it is tossing rubbish anywhere that isn't a designated rubbish tip. Like the end of a creek or something, every town has its notorious "fly tipping" spot.

Hey People you have fallen for the oldest "trick in the book", "make out that this is really about traffic violations", and you are talking about how good or bad people drive in California. The point is that this is incredibly dishonest! They are STEALING from the motorist! There's no other word for it! The California government - or any government for that matter - doesn't care at all about how people drive. In fact if motorists suddenly stopped committing any violations at all, overnight, and became perfect drivers, this would be the worst thing that could happen as far as the state government is concerned. They simply couldn't do without all that "lovely extorted money" and would be reduced to picking on (say) every 10th car and demanding a fine from the driver for having his car painted the wrong colour or something. This could be justified, if ever challenged, by saying "we've got to pay for these machines somehow".

...it does not say that he was indeed a felon. Obviously if they are returning the items, they likely found that they received bad info. Too bad they did not act properly and actually check his record first. He is, indeed, a convicted felon. His guilty plea is a conviction under the law. "Colorado law prohibits convicted felons from possessing weapons, and Martin had pleaded guilty to vehicular assault in 1991." This may be strictly "the law", but doesn't it strike you as absurd that "vehicular assault" 17 years ago means that it is legal for police to steal all his guns? I mean maybe there should be a restriction of some kind on his vehicle (i.e. his driving of it), I mean that actually has some relevance. But after 17 years ..... ? How many times should people pay for a crime in your books and for how long? (Now I'm not debating what the law "is", just the morality of it).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...-wrong-day.html Single mother faces

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...-driveways.html Council threatens families with a

Ah! The dog did survive. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...saved-life.html Cuddled up on the sofa with her older sister and the family's adored dog, Leona Baxter will have had no idea how vital the pet would prove in saving her young life. The three-year-old and sister Kiah posed for this picture with Brophy, their boxer-mastiff cross, before she survived being sucked down a hidden storm drain. Brophy also fell into the whirlpool created by the drain as they were playing in a park during a family walk following torrential rain battering Britain last weekend. It is thought he helped save Leona's life by dislodging her when she was stuck in the pipe, allowing the little girl to make her way through the underground tunnel.

When I first heard this, I wondered what the logic was in "continuing" when the ludicrousness of the "liquid bomb plot, targetting airlines" fantasy, joke, had been exposed. But after reading this, the only answer seems to be that "airlines have already spend so much money on these 'measures' and don't want to look more stupid than they are". So the sheep can now sign a collective bah and go back to the safety of their tightly controlled sheep paddock. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...y-verdicts.html Air hell for five years: No end to anti-terror baggage measures despite jury verdicts By Ray Massey Last updated at 12:49 AM on 10th September 2008 Air passengers face five more years of bans on carrying liquids in their hand luggage, it has emerged. The news comes despite the result of a high-profile court trial on Monday which saw eight suspects escape conviction over an alleged plot to blow up planes. The prosecution alleged they had plotted to target transatlantic airliners with home-made liquid explosives disguised as soft drinks. But the jury failed to return a verdict on that charge, instead convicting three of conspiracy to murder and clearing one man of all charges. After the men were arrested in August 2006, restrictions on liquids were brought into place overnight, causing immediate chaos and lengthy delays for travellers at airports across the country. On Tuesday airlines called for a review of the rules, with the most vociferous comments coming from Virgin Atlantic. Paul Charles, its director of communications, said passengers were confused by different restrictions in different airports and in different countries. He added: 'Passengers want more certainty, less confusion and more clarity about restrictions across the world.' Roger Wiltshire of the British Air Transport Association, which represents airlines, said: 'We would expect the Government to review its security regulation in the light of the court case.' But the Department for Transport ruled out any relaxation of security in the short term, claiming a terror threat still exists. A spokesman said: 'We base our rules on the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre's (JTAC's) latest assessment. 'The current national threat level remains at 'severe', which is defined as an attack is highly likely. 'The court case has proven that a generic capability exists to create liquid bombs from domestic items. 'Aircraft could be vulnerable to such devices so we are right to continue to require restrictions for liquids carried as hand luggage. We are also right to require these restrictions internationally as, potentially, we are all at risk.' The department admitted the restrictions could be in place for up to another five years. And it categorically denied BBC reports that it planned to lift restrictions on liquids and the size of bags that can be carried 'within a year'. A spokesman said: 'That's 100 per cent incorrect. There is no timescale.' The terror alert caused chaos at Britain's airports as strict rules were introduced overnight. Body searches intensified, adding to queues and delays. Mothers were forced to taste their own baby's bottled milk and prams were X-rayed. Motorists had to put car keys attached to electronic fobs into the hold. Since then, a new generation of screening machines that can detect fluids have been bought by airport operator BAA. But suspect containers then have to be given further examination. The liquids ban will therefore stay in place until there is a machine that can not only monitor all liquids, but do so without causing lengthy delays, which experts predict will take five years. The bomb plot has cost the aviation industry an estimated

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2529.asp California Cities Have Red Light Camera Ticket Quota Los Angeles County and Roseville, California each insist that photo ticket companies meet a numeric standard for the number of citations issued. Traffic police in Los Angeles, California are not alone in facing heavy pressure to meet ticket quotas in tough budget times. According to newly uncovered contract documents in two California jurisdictions, even their robotic counterparts must also issue a set number of tickets each month or face corrective action. In 2000 the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency signed a $3,497,960 contract with a Dallas-based firm, now known as Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), to issue pricey photo citations at seventeen railroad crossings. The county further ordered the company to keep a steady flow of tickets, or face corrective action. "The contractor shall be required to maintain, at a minimum, the existing rates of citations issued by location as summarized in Attachment F," the agency's contract with ACS stipulates. "For any location where the calculated rate of citations issued is lower than the baseline rate of citations issued, the contractor shall prepare and submit a Corrective Actions Report which provides an analysis of the reasons for the lower rate of citations issued, description of the corrective actions to be taken, and time schedule for implementing the corrective actions." The contract sets as the baseline that the company must issue 25 tickets for every 100 alleged violations recorded by the machine. These recordings include any number of situations where either no real offense took place, or the driver cannot be positively identified -- as required under California law. Nonetheless, if the total number of citations mailed falls under 25 per 100, the corrective steps must be taken to boost the number of citations mailed. In effect, this provides a direct incentive to the contractor to issue tickets regardless of whether the machine properly captured a true violation. There is no penalty under state law for a contractor to guess, for example, a license plate number when the image is unreadable. The contract documents were obtained by the editor of the highwayrobbery.net website who suggested that these provisions directly conflict with a state law prohibiting "any policy requiring any peace officer or parking enforcement employees to meet an arrest quota" (California Vehicle Code Section 41602). The law defines arrest quotas as any requirement for a police officer or meter maid to issue any proportion or number of "notices of violation." Under California law, a police officer technically "issues" each red light camera or rail crossing photo citation often in a procedure known as bulk approval. Near Sacramento, the city of Roseville crafted a similar quota provision in its contract with vendor Redflex Traffic Systems, except in this case the beneficiary is the Australian company. Redflex agreed to provide intersection cameras to the city at a "flat rate" of $6000, as required by law. The flat rate, however, is not truly flat Redflex will be paid less if an insufficient number of the $380 tickets are issued. The company can avoid this loss: "If the city or police waives more than 10 percent of valid violations forwarded to the police for acceptance according to mutually agreed upon business rules established during the project kick-off meeting," the contract states. This provision in effect prevents police from being generous in their interpretation of what constitutes a violation, especially in the case of right turns on red, by creating a direct financial incentive to approve citations provided by the vendor. Roseville Police had taken steps to avoid public disclosure of information regarding its red light camera program. In a 2006 memo to a neighboring department, Roseville Police expressed frustration with individuals, including the editor of highwayrobbery.net, for disclosing contract provisions that the city prefers to keep secret. "The one annoyance are the people who have made it their mission to fight photo red light citations by making public records requests," Roseville Police wrote. "My recommendations is that you save every related document somewhere and when you get your first public records request you send them an avalanche of paper and charge them accordingly." A copy of the contracts is available in a 1mb PDF file at the source link below. Source: Contract No. SP035 and Exclusive Agreement (Los Angeles County and Roseville, California, 9/8/2008)

In true "1984" fashion http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...k-wardens.html# Adults spotted without children to be interrogated by park wardens By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 1:08 AM on 10th September 2008 Park wardens have been ordered to stop and interrogate anyone who is not accompanied by children. The visitors who are quizzed have to explain their presence and risk being thrown out or reported to police if their answers are not satisfactory. The policy has been introduced at Telford Town Park in Shropshire. The council which manages the 420-acre area says it is a 'commonsense approach' aimed at safeguarding children. But park users accused it of 'authoritarian madness' and said the ruling risked panicking parents about the dangers faced from potential paedophiles. The policy came to light after two environmental campaigners dressed as penguins were thrown out of the park last month when caught handing out leaflets on climate change. Telford and Wrekin Council said Rachel Whittaker and Neil Donaldson were ejected because they had not undergone Criminal Records Bureau checks or risk assessments before entering the park - a requirement under the Child Protection Act. David Ottley, recreation manager at the Tory-run council, said in a letter to a member of the public over that issue: 'Our town park staff approach adults that are not associated with any children in the park and request the reason for them being there. 'In particular, this applies to those areas where children or more vulnerable groups gather.' Miss Whittaker, 34, from Wellington, near Telford, said the policy carried a 'dangerous implication that if you have a child with you than everything is OK and you won't be questioned'. Former childcare social worker John Evans said: 'It is authoritarian madness which can only be based on ignorance. It is absurd, it is insulting and it is dangerous as it panics people about the dangers their children face.' A council spokesman insisted that only those 'acting suspiciously' would be stopped and questioned.