Yes of course you should wear a helmet. But this is a case of civil liberties – if not quite on a par with ID cards or internet freedom. Just imagine such a law. It wouldn’t stop vehicles pulling out of side junctions into our path, or make them indicate when turning left in front of us.
It is precisely the same as the ID cards and Internet freedom. It is precisely the same control freaks who would dictate every aspect of our lives and they must be vigorously fought on whatever battlefield we encounter them – whether it is the high profile stuff like ID cards or the more mundane that is likely to slip under the radar such as cycle helmets.
“It is precisely the same control freaks who would dictate every aspect of our lives and they must be vigorously fought on whatever battlefield we encounter them – whether it is the high profile stuff like ID cards or the more mundane that is likely to slip under the radar such as cycle helmets.”
And even higher profile perhaps, is the shiny forehead of doom’s current proposal to block porn…. and of course once they get this past the sheep, welcome to China.
I wonder where Phillip Hoare stood on the imposition of seatbelts in cars, or the mandated use of EU-approved baby seats in cars, or smoking in cars..?
“I wonder where Phillip Hoare stood on the imposition of seatbelts in cars, or the mandated use of EU-approved baby seats in cars, or smoking in cars..?”
No idea where he stands on those issue. But I would say that babies aren’t the property of their parents so I have no problems with there being child protection laws that force fuckwit parents to behave sensibly. However I opposed mandatory wearing of seat belts and oppose restrictions on smoking in cars.
“But I would say that babies aren’t the property of their parents”
Who’s ‘property’ are they, then? notwithstanding that only certain types of mentality could describe babies i.e. small human beings, as ‘property’ – ‘What shall we buy this year? new curtains or a baby?’ Sheesh!
Definitely, welcome to China.
“Who’s ‘property’ are they, then? notwithstanding that only certain types of mentality could describe babies i.e. small human beings, as ‘property’ – ‘What shall we buy this year? new curtains or a baby?’ Sheesh!”
Missing the point by a parsec. They are no one’s property. The point I was making was that parental rights to not extend to making decisions on behalf of their children that are clearly dangerous. Transporting a small child in a car without that child being strapped into the appropriate kind of seat is dangerous and so I have no problems with the law saying to parents, if you wish to transport your child by car then you must use an appropriate seat.
In which case ‘Responsibility’ would have been a better word. And, perhaps, different phrasing.
“In which case ‘Responsibility’ would have been a better word. And, perhaps, different phrasing. ”
Or perhaps a surer grasp of colloquial English might have served you better.
Babies are also not the property of the state
You wouldn’t think so the way politicians and their parasitic hangers on go on.
“… the shiny forehead of doom’s current proposal to block porn…. ”
Of course:- pass draconian legislation dressed up as “won’t somebody think of the children?”
and then they can proscribe whatever they want to.
However, thanks to the whistleblower who posted a link to the new opt-in form:-
http://fl23200u.form2go.com/uk-isp-filtering-select.html
“Of course:- pass draconian legislation dressed up as “won’t somebody think of the children?”
and then they can proscribe whatever they want to”
Although I am opposed to the opt in to the anti-porn filter, I would not call it “draconian”. I would call the extreme porn ban draconian, as people have been sent to jail for the non-crime of possessing images of consenting adult actors pretending to be be choked. Not really my thing but I can see no reason why those who get their rocks off that way should be criminalized.
And of course, there’s no of course about it.
You may also have noticed that Cameron is proposing an extension of the “Extreme Porn” ban to cover simulated scenes of rape. Well that will be High Plains Drifter and Clockwork Orange for the incinerator. But it won’t, of course. Because the modern right excuses the products of Hollywood from its censorship. As usual, rich monied interests are excused. Who told us the modern right believed in freedom ….? Let me think.
I should add that I think the extreme porn prohibition should be completely repealed and I am sure that eventually large parts of it will be found in violation of the ECHR. I just note again the only parts of government that the mainstream right want to make smaller is the welfare state.