It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Do you have to carry ID, License, insurance, documents, blah?

page: 11
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 05:14 PM
a reply to: EvillerBob

Indeedy - I thought as I wrote that post that at any time, Parliament can pass an Act to get rid of the ECHR or even Bill of Rights if it so wished. In fact, Cameron has discussed doing that very thing. I just didn't want to muddy the waters while trying to tell GoS the difference between a "right" and "privilege"

a reply to: EvillerBob

I've been on both ends of the law (as a victim and as a suspect) and I've found being courteous and polite get's you an easy ride, no matter what.

When I was arrested, I was perfectly civil (in fact I waited for an hour at the scene for Police to arrive rather than run), I didn't become combative and was fully compliant.

I was allowed to sit in the back of the car uncuffed, at the custody suite I had my door left unlocked and had free roam to go for a smoke (the Sgt even joined me for a smoke) or the loo, plus they even brought me dinner.

Manners cost nothing, at the end of the day. Why make your life harder with the Police if you're being nicked when it is inevitable you're getting taken in somehow - you may as well do it quietly and peacefully. It also stands you in good stead in court, I've found.

posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 06:11 PM

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: EvillerBob

Indeedy - I thought as I wrote that post that at any time, Parliament can pass an Act to get rid of the ECHR or even Bill of Rights if it so wished. In fact, Cameron has discussed doing that very thing. I just didn't want to muddy the waters while trying to tell GoS the difference between a "right" and "privilege"

When a majority government in the UK can even legally define 'rights' and 'privileges' if enough MP's agree it makes a mockery of both the labels.
Who do you devolve responsibility to when questions of privilege are asked? The UN, EU, or national governments?

If the people who define the labels control the enforcement then the labels become irrelevant don't you think?

posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 07:04 PM
a reply to: grainofsand

Not at all - as you started the thread with the US in mind, they actually have protected rights that can only be changed through a lengthy process that requires extensive support from Congress and the States - it can't be just removed willy nilly - as do other countries with codified constitutions.

In the UK, we have very few (if any) "rights". All are privileges granted to us to by Parliament and all can be taken away.

You also said that driving in the UK is a right - it is not, it is a privilege, that is why we're having this discussion, although it seems you have now come to terms with that though and realised that driving is not a right.

posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 09:15 AM
a reply to: stumason

Stu, when it comes down to it rights and privileges are the same thing in the UK when a majority Parliament can at a whim impose any new legislation it wishes to.
Yep, I was incorrect to use the term 'right' regarding driving in the UK, when looking at it from the perspective of the US member I replied to.

But that's the thing, the US does have 'rights' set in a written constitution, while we do not.
I see a clear distinction between rights and privileges in the US, but not so much here in the UK, just semantics.
You said earlier:

A "right" would mean everyone is entitled to a license with no barriers, exams or other tests of competency - such as a passport, for example.

But then you read documents like this:

British citizens are not entitled to a passport. Passports are issued, withdrawn and refused
at the discretion of the Home Secretary under the Royal Prerogative (an executive power
which does not require legislation).

That is pretty much the same with all aspects of our lives here, so while I was incorrect to state driving is a 'right' not a 'privilege' the two are pretty much interchangeable from my perspective. Add 'entitled' to the mix, as above, and what have we got? Basically everything we are 'allowed' to do in the UK is governed by a law with restrictions, and definitions of those who qualify.
Laws which can be changed at the whim of a majority voting Parliament.

The more I think about things it would seem the same in all countries, including the US, where even the constitution can be changed with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and Senate.
Rights, privileges, entitlements, meh same thing just different labels. All are set and decided by the ruling system of government, all can be withdrawn by that government.

One thing is for sure, it is easier for a government in the UK to strip rights, privileges, and entitlements away at a whim compared to the US.
Majority vote by MP's in Parliament is all it takes about any issue.
In that sense, all our 'freedoms' are really just 'privileges' granted by Parliament.

...I am glad though that if I'm pulled and I don't have any documents with me at the time it will not result in a penalty.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 07:51 AM

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Yeah, not to derail the discussion, but it's similar to the idea that you can't own a the UK. I just don't get that.

You can, actually... The barrel just needs to be over 30cm long. So essentially, we're allowed pistols, just really, really big ones! No tiny lady guns for us!

Hmmm...sounds more like a shortened rifle without a buttstock to me
And like with driving--is ownership of said foot-long pistol a right, or a privilege? In any case, thanks for the update on my information, as it's good to know. There was a post a while back that discussed the UK gun laws, and it stated emphatically that pistols were not allowed over there. While I try not to blindly believe everything on here, I couldn't find any information that negated the claim.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 08:13 AM
a reply to: grainofsand

to buy alcohol or tobacco, you Must be of legal age. it used to be you could show your ID to get it. Now you have to "scan" the ID before the transaction can be complete. (in Texas) I do not know of any federal regulation that requires it, it is a State requirement.

posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 09:12 AM
a reply to: thedigirati

Picture ID's are sort of pointless here without the scanner verification such as in your state. Many young people just buy a fake UK driving license picture ID-card off the internet. with a different date of birth.
They look just like the real thing so the shops, bars, and nightclubs don't really care as they are covered legally through being 'conned' by the fake ID.

UK smoking and drinking age is 18, but with the easy to obtain fake ID's there are many 15-17 year olds out every weekend. I did the same myself when under aged, except that in my day nobody ever asked for ID, and so long as you behaved yourself they turned a blind eye.

Of course that was also in the days before national criminal checks and standards for security/door staff were introduced, and no CCTV pretty much anywhere. If you misbehaved in a bar or club it was normal to expect a nasty beating .

top topics

<< 8  9  10   >>

log in