…in a public place!

“The lady concerned was entitled to her privacy and not to have a passing stranger take a photograph,” said the sheriff.

Source

Im sorry, Sheriff Kenneth Hogg, but you sir, are a moron. She was in public, she was entitled to no privacy. If she was in the toilets, then yes, I can see a problem with taking a photo of a person there, but if the woman is out in public, why cant I photograph her? Because shes ill? Is the line drawn at photography? Am I alowed to sit there and draw it? Charcoal? Paint it? Why not just draw the line at me not looking at her – why not just cover her up with a tarp and pretend she dosent exist?

“I’m going to impose a fine to remind him chivalry is not dead and when somebody is in distress you leave them to it.”

So you are imposing a fine on him, because of your own personal belief? I cant find anything in British law that says you have to be chivalrous, so you have made up the law on the spot, and abused your power.

I wonder, if he wasnt Polish, if he was brazillian, how many bullets would he have been shot with? If he was Arab, he probably would have been branded a Terrorist, scouting locations of Ossama Bin Laden.

Councils and health authorities are to be given the right to access e-mail and internet records under surveillance powers to be introduced next year, the Home Office said yesterday.

Although first proposed to tackle terrorism and serious crime, powers have been extended to cover other criminal activity, public health, threats to public safety and even prevention of self-harm.

Here we go again! Power creep by the retarded government. Soon, this power will be extended to anyone, to be used against anyone who has thoughts against this government, or thinks about voting against the government at the next election. Since this is a Terrorism power, does this mean when the local retards decide to check my email, they will brand me a Terrorist?

Source