Re: Crackdown on those who don't use seatbelts- UK


I thought so but yes it is wrong the driver gets the worse penalty.
It is though unpractical for the points. That law anyway is a money
making scam anyway. Especially if it carries more points than driving
on the wrong side on a one way street for example.

Slightly off topic but related Ive found a couple of sites which
might interest you:
http://www.globalgovernancewatch.org/recent_developments/who-
commission-calls-for-global-response-to-health-inequities

and http://sinforum.freeforums.org/?EBTX_notify=logout which has
discussions about the plenty of threats to civil liberties the UK and
indeed other countries face every second.

Yours
Charles





--- In stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com, Paul Coxwell
<paulcoxwell@...> wrote:
>
> Charles wrote:
> > In the current situation Paul we were for sure. But one question
my
> > guess is that the points in Ireland only apply to drivers as it
could
> > be complex otherwise given many passangers wouldnt even have a
> > licence. Am I right in this Paul?? Otherwise what for passangers?
>
> Yes, the points apply only to the driver, either for failure buckle
up
> himself or for allowing a child to ride unbuckled (except they've
set
> the age at which the driver ceases to be responsible at 17 instead
of 14
> as it is in the U.K.).
>
> Even if one accepts the idea of compulsion to use belts -- which we
> don't, of course -- this raises questions of disparity in penalties
> between drivers and passengers.
>
> Why should the driver be subject to a harsher penalty (fine PLUS
points)
> than a passenger who is doing exactly the same thing?   This means
that
> a driver could end up having his license suspended over multiple
belt
> violations, while a passenger with just as many citations only pays
the
> fine, even if he is a driver himself.
>
> Here's some information on the introduction of the penalty point
system
> in Ireland:
>
> http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/travel-and-
recreation/motoring-1/driving-offences/penalty-points-for-driving-
offences
>
> And here's a list of the offenses which currently attract points:
>
> http://www.penaltypoints.ie/the_full_list_of_offences.php
>
> Notice how a belt violation carries more points than driving on the
> wrong side of the road or driving the wrong way down a one-way
street!
>
> -Paul.
>

Charles wrote:
> In the current situation Paul we were for sure. But one question my
> guess is that the points in Ireland only apply to drivers as it could
> be complex otherwise given many passangers wouldnt even have a
> licence. Am I right in this Paul?? Otherwise what for passangers?

Yes, the points apply only to the driver, either for failure buckle up
himself or for allowing a child to ride unbuckled (except they've set
the age at which the driver ceases to be responsible at 17 instead of 14
as it is in the U.K.).

Even if one accepts the idea of compulsion to use belts -- which we
don't, of course -- this raises questions of disparity in penalties
between drivers and passengers.

Why should the driver be subject to a harsher penalty (fine PLUS points)
than a passenger who is doing exactly the same thing?   This means that
a driver could end up having his license suspended over multiple belt
violations, while a passenger with just as many citations only pays the
fine, even if he is a driver himself.

Here's some information on the introduction of the penalty point system
in Ireland:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/travel-and-recreation/motoring-1/dr\
iving-offences/penalty-points-for-driving-offences

And here's a list of the offenses which currently attract points:

http://www.penaltypoints.ie/the_full_list_of_offences.php

Notice how a belt violation carries more points than driving on the
wrong side of the road or driving the wrong way down a one-way street!

-Paul.

In the current situation Paul we were for sure. But one question my
guess is that the points in Ireland only apply to drivers as it could
be complex otherwise given many passangers wouldnt even have a
licence. Am I right in this Paul?? Otherwise what for passangers?

Yours
Charles


--- In stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com, Paul Coxwell
<paulcoxwell@...> wrote:
>
> Charles wrote:
> > http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/crackdown-on-
seatbelt
> >
> > Press Releases
> > Search for press releases
> > Crackdown on those who don't use seatbelts
> > 15 September 2008
> >
> > The Home Office has launched a consultation into increasing the
fixed
> > penalty for those who fail to wear a seatbelt.
> >
> > The consultation (new window) seeks views on increasing the fixed
> > penalty from £30 to £60 for failure to comply with seat belt
> > legislation.
>
> The government hopes it will improve safety.  More likely the
government
> hopes it will increase its revenue in fines.
>
> I guess that most of us in the U.K. knew that this would be coming
soon,
> as the fixed penalty for minor offenses has been £30 for quite a
few
> years now.  The soon raised the £30 fine mobile-phone use while
driving
> to £60 plus 3 penalty point not long after the law was introduced.
>
> It must have been about a year, maybe two, ago that Ireland bumped
up
> its seat belt penalties and started putting penalty points on
licenses
> too.  Then of course September 2006 saw the lasy big change to all
the
> child carseat/belt laws, which have become so complex that even
those
> people who normally DO use belts and child seats are likely to fall
foul
> of the legislation even if unintentionally.
>
> I'm only surprised that the U.K. hasn't yet started talking about
> penalty points for belt offenses, but I'm sure it won't be long.
>
> A point to ponder:  What is the current fixed penalty for a basic
> construction & use offense?  I have a feeling it might be £30.   So
if
> the belt violation goes up to £60, and they DO eventually decide to
have
> it carry points, it will be a better risk to simply remove the
driver's
> belt from my car entirely.  Have to check up on that one.....
>
> -Paul.
>

as if we didnt know it already!!

--- In stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com, "William P. Grossklas, Sr."
<grossklas@...> wrote:
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Charles
>   To: stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 10:28 AM
>   Subject: [stickittoclickit] Crackdown on those who don't use
seatbelts- UK
>
>
>   http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/crackdown-on-
seatbelt
>
>   Press Releases
>   Search for press releases
>   Crackdown on those who don't use seatbelts
>   15 September 2008
>
>   The Home Office has launched a consultation into increasing the
fixed
>   penalty for those who fail to wear a seatbelt.
>
>   The consultation (new window) seeks views on increasing the fixed
>   penalty from £30 to £60 for failure to comply with seat belt
>   legislation.
>
>   The government hopes the increase will convince those people who
>   still risk injury or death to themselves and others to start
using
>   their seat belts.
>
>   While educational campaigns and publicity have made considerable
>   differences in behaviour, some drivers and passengers still
ignore
>   the risks.
>
>   In crashes at speeds between 0 and 30 mph, seat belts reduce the
risk
>   of death by 60%.
>
>   So that means 40% of the time, these safety belts fail.  What
other product could be put on the market and stay there with a 40%
failure rate and not incur massive lawsuits?
>
>   Other changes possible
>   The consultation also seeks views on increasing the fixed penalty
for
>   the misrepresentation of vehicle registration marks from £30 to
£60.
>
>   The use of illegal number plates can have a significant impact on
>   criminal investigations and crime detection, particularly on the
>   effective use of automatic number plate recognition cameras to
help
>   police fight crime.
>
>   Home Office minister's statement
>   Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker said, 'The vast majority of
>   motorists wear seat belts but some drivers and passengers still
>   choose not to, even though wearing a seat belt is a key factor in
>   avoiding death or injury in a car crash.
>
>   'By increasing the fixed penalty we hope to deter more motorists
from
>   not wearing a seat belt, and underline to them and other road
users
>   the risks.'
>
>   Road Safety minister's statement
>   Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick said, 'Wearing a seat belt
could
>   save your life; it's as simple as that.
>
>   Notice the dissembling here.  "Could" save your life; not "will"
save your life.  This means it is still the luck of the draw whether
you will live or die; pure chance.  As it is pure chance, it means
forcing the use of seatbelts is nothing more than a money-making
scam.  But, then, you already knew that.  This article just proves it.
>
>    Research is clear that around
>   350 lives in 2006 could have been saved by belting up.
>
>   'We are determined all drivers and passengers realise the
importance
>   of wearing a seat belt, both in the front and back of a vehicle.
>   Today's proposal sends a clear message about this and will
encourage
>   more people to belt up for all trips.
>
>   'Alongside this, the Department for Transport (new window) will
soon
>   be launching a new, hard-hitting public information campaign,
>   reminding everyone of the value of always using a seat belt.'
>
>   Notes to editors
>

Charles wrote:
> http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/crackdown-on-seatbelt
>
> Press Releases
> Search for press releases
> Crackdown on those who don't use seatbelts
> 15 September 2008
>
> The Home Office has launched a consultation into increasing the fixed
> penalty for those who fail to wear a seatbelt.
>
> The consultation (new window) seeks views on increasing the fixed
> penalty from £30 to £60 for failure to comply with seat belt
> legislation.

The government hopes it will improve safety.  More likely the government
hopes it will increase its revenue in fines.

I guess that most of us in the U.K. knew that this would be coming soon,
as the fixed penalty for minor offenses has been £30 for quite a few
years now.  The soon raised the £30 fine mobile-phone use while driving
to £60 plus 3 penalty point not long after the law was introduced.

It must have been about a year, maybe two, ago that Ireland bumped up
its seat belt penalties and started putting penalty points on licenses
too.  Then of course September 2006 saw the lasy big change to all the
child carseat/belt laws, which have become so complex that even those
people who normally DO use belts and child seats are likely to fall foul
of the legislation even if unintentionally.

I'm only surprised that the U.K. hasn't yet started talking about
penalty points for belt offenses, but I'm sure it won't be long.

A point to ponder:  What is the current fixed penalty for a basic
construction & use offense?  I have a feeling it might be £30.   So if
the belt violation goes up to £60, and they DO eventually decide to have
it carry points, it will be a better risk to simply remove the driver's
belt from my car entirely.  Have to check up on that one.....

-Paul.

----- Original Message -----

From: Charles

To: stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 10:28 AM

Subject: [stickittoclickit] Crackdown on those who don't use seatbelts- UK

http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/crackdown-on-seatbelt

Press Releases
Search for press releases
Crackdown on those who don't use seatbelts
15 September 2008

The Home Office has launched a consultation into increasing the fixed
penalty for those who fail to wear a seatbelt.

The consultation (new window) seeks views on increasing the fixed
penalty from £30 to £60 for failure to comply with seat belt
legislation.

The government hopes the increase will convince those people who
still risk injury or death to themselves and others to start using
their seat belts.

While educational campaigns and publicity have made considerable
differences in behaviour, some drivers and passengers still ignore
the risks.

In crashes at speeds between 0 and 30 mph, seat belts reduce the risk
of death by 60%.

So that means 40% of the time, these safety belts fail.  What other product could be put on the market and stay there with a 40% failure rate and not incur massive lawsuits?

Other changes possible
The consultation also seeks views on increasing the fixed penalty for
the misrepresentation of vehicle registration marks from £30 to £60.

The use of illegal number plates can have a significant impact on
criminal investigations and crime detection, particularly on the
effective use of automatic number plate recognition cameras to help
police fight crime.

Home Office minister's statement
Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker said, 'The vast majority of
motorists wear seat belts but some drivers and passengers still
choose not to, even though wearing a seat belt is a key factor in
avoiding death or injury in a car crash.

'By increasing the fixed penalty we hope to deter more motorists from
not wearing a seat belt, and underline to them and other road users
the risks.'

Road Safety minister's statement
Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick said, 'Wearing a seat belt could
save your life; it's as simple as that.

Notice the dissembling here.  "Could" save your life; not "will" save your life.  This means it is still the luck of the draw whether you will live or die; pure chance.  As it is pure chance, it means forcing the use of seatbelts is nothing more than a money-making scam.  But, then, you already knew that.  This article just proves it.

 Research is clear that around
350 lives in 2006 could have been saved by belting up.

'We are determined all drivers and passengers realise the importance
of wearing a seat belt, both in the front and back of a vehicle.
Today's proposal sends a clear message about this and will encourage
more people to belt up for all trips.

'Alongside this, the Department for Transport (new window) will soon
be launching a new, hard-hitting public information campaign,
reminding everyone of the value of always using a seat belt.'

Notes to editors

http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/crackdown-on-seatbelt

Press Releases
Search for press releases
Crackdown on those who don't use seatbelts
15 September 2008

The Home Office has launched a consultation into increasing the fixed
penalty for those who fail to wear a seatbelt.

The consultation (new window) seeks views on increasing the fixed
penalty from £30 to £60 for failure to comply with seat belt
legislation.

The government hopes the increase will convince those people who
still risk injury or death to themselves and others to start using
their seat belts.

While educational campaigns and publicity have made considerable
differences in behaviour, some drivers and passengers still ignore
the risks.

In crashes at speeds between 0 and 30 mph, seat belts reduce the risk
of death by 60%.

Other changes possible
The consultation also seeks views on increasing the fixed penalty for
the misrepresentation of vehicle registration marks from £30 to £60.

The use of illegal number plates can have a significant impact on
criminal investigations and crime detection, particularly on the
effective use of automatic number plate recognition cameras to help
police fight crime.

Home Office minister's statement
Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker said, 'The vast majority of
motorists wear seat belts but some drivers and passengers still
choose not to, even though wearing a seat belt is a key factor in
avoiding death or injury in a car crash.

'By increasing the fixed penalty we hope to deter more motorists from
not wearing a seat belt, and underline to them and other road users
the risks.'

Road Safety minister's statement
Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick said, 'Wearing a seat belt could
save your life; it's as simple as that. Research is clear that around
350 lives in 2006 could have been saved by belting up.

'We are determined all drivers and passengers realise the importance
of wearing a seat belt, both in the front and back of a vehicle.
Today's proposal sends a clear message about this and will encourage
more people to belt up for all trips.

'Alongside this, the Department for Transport (new window) will soon
be launching a new, hard-hitting public information campaign,
reminding everyone of the value of always using a seat belt.'

Notes to editors

Interesting comments.  Note how the RAC (Royal Automobile Club -- one of
the two main motoring organizations in the U.K.) was against compulsory
belt use 35 years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1040347/Why-ministers-1973-feared-ladies\
-like-clunk-click.html

-Paul.

----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Coxwell

To: SITCIOT

Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:49 AM

Subject: [stickittoclickit] One free-man & his seat belt (UK)

This is a little complex to follow, since it's tied in with the man's
affidavit to the Queen declaring himself a freeman under the terms of
the Magna Carta and English Common Law on the basis that the land is now
being governed by a traitorous government which is thus unlawful.

Original report of ticket and ensuing argument & arrest:
http://www.tpuc.org/node/259

Correspondence:
http://www.tpuc.org/node/260

-Paul.

This is a little complex to follow, since it's tied in with the man's
affidavit to the Queen declaring himself a freeman under the terms of
the Magna Carta and English Common Law on the basis that the land is now
being governed by a traitorous government which is thus unlawful.

Original report of ticket and ensuing argument & arrest:
http://www.tpuc.org/node/259

Correspondence:
http://www.tpuc.org/node/260

-Paul.

This story is from 2003 and not directly related to seat belts, but it
just goes to show the mentality of some of those attempting to force
"safety" upon us.

Asaide from the obvious complete insensitivity of this cop in holding up
a funeral procession for such a trivial alleged motoring offense, he
clearly did not understand the details of the law on helmets in this
particular scenario.  We've seen similar cases where a cop doesn't
understand the full list of exemptions and age-related issues on belts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3083380.stm

-Paul.

----- Original Message -----

From: Keith

To: stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 8:31 PM

Subject: [stickittoclickit] Paramedic Who Dosen't Buckle

Would seat belt have saved her?
DEKALB COUNTY | It's what-if for paramedic after wife ejected, killed
in rollover crash

May 26, 2008

BY DENISE CROSBY Beacon News

Chris Olson pulled into the Waterman fire station around 11:40 that
Thursday night, more out of curiosity than anything else.

On his way home from his job as operations manager for Ridge Ambulance
Service in Montgomery, the paramedic and EMT trainer who also
volunteers with the Waterman EMS department in DeKalb County had
checked his pager and learned the crew was called out on a one-car
rollover.

So he decided to make a quick stop at the station before heading home
to Jamie, his bride of 10 months.

"Hey guys, what's going on?" he said to the somber-looking men when he
walked through the door. Then, before he could elicit a response,
Assistant Fire Chief Jerry Kaus asked him to step into the back room.

"What did I do now?" he remembers joking.

It wasn't until the chief closed the door that Olson learned the full
extent of the events of the last couple of hours.

About two hours earlier, he had talked to Jamie -- a bus driver with
the Yorkville School District who was training to be an EMT -- on her
cell phone. She was on her way home from playing bingo in DeKalb, but
the conversation was abruptly cut off at 9:41 p.m. And when he tried
to call her back, there was no answer.

About an hour later, while doing paperwork at the office, his
ambulance dispatcher got a call from the DeKalb coroner's office
inquiring about Chris Olson's whereabouts.

A little later, when Olson drove past his home in Waterman on his way
to check in with the EMS team, he noticed the truck his wife had been
driving was not yet home.

Then there were those grim faces of his colleagues. And now, as his
gut clenched, the door closed behind him.

"We had a terrible accident..." his boss began. "It's your wife."

Chris vaguely remembers uttering an oh-my-God. He clearly remembers
the chief's next words -- "She passed away."

As he quickly learned, the 911 call to Waterman's EMS crew came five
minutes after Chris was disconnected from Jamie. A teenager living in
a farmhouse had heard a loud noise, then saw headlights in the field.
After negotiating the curve in the rural road, Jamie had fishtailed on
the soft gravel.

As the truck rolled over, his 23-year-old wife was ejected.

And now Chris, in addition to planning a funeral for "the rock in my
life," is left with what-ifs whirling through his head. What if
Jamie's brother had gone with her to play bingo, as planned?

What if he had left work an hour earlier and responded to the 911
call? And the big one: What if Jamie had been wearing a seat belt?

It's a sensitive subject for the 30-year-old paramedic. Despite the
fact Chris teaches EMT classes throughout the Fox Valley, he has not
worn a seat belt since 1997 -- when he was hit by a drunken driver and
trapped in a car that caught fire. The only thing that saved his life
was a correctional officer who came along with a fire extinguisher.

"I would try to wear a seat belt after the accident," he said. "But I
just couldn't do it."

But Chris always re-engaged the belt whenever Jamie drove the truck --
except on May 15, that fatal Thursday when the couple hurriedly
exchanged vehicles earlier in the day because of his wife's doctor's
appointment.

Chris can never be certain a seat belt would have saved Jamie's life
-- the truck came down on the driver's side. But he does know one
thing for sure: Now, more than ever, he is in a position to send out a
powerful message that could save lives.

On the way to DeKalb on Friday to do some last-minute errands for his
wife's funeral, Chris Olson pulled the seat belt around him and kept
it on the entire drive.

"It was hard," he admitted. "But I will keep trying to wear it."

Sun-Times News Group

> http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/970597,CST-NWS-crosby26.article

Would seat belt have saved her?
DEKALB COUNTY | It's what-if for paramedic after wife ejected, killed
in rollover crash

May 26, 2008

BY DENISE CROSBY Beacon News

Chris Olson pulled into the Waterman fire station around 11:40 that
Thursday night, more out of curiosity than anything else.

On his way home from his job as operations manager for Ridge Ambulance
Service in Montgomery, the paramedic and EMT trainer who also
volunteers with the Waterman EMS department in DeKalb County had
checked his pager and learned the crew was called out on a one-car
rollover.

So he decided to make a quick stop at the station before heading home
to Jamie, his bride of 10 months.

"Hey guys, what's going on?" he said to the somber-looking men when he
walked through the door. Then, before he could elicit a response,
Assistant Fire Chief Jerry Kaus asked him to step into the back room.

"What did I do now?" he remembers joking.

It wasn't until the chief closed the door that Olson learned the full
extent of the events of the last couple of hours.

About two hours earlier, he had talked to Jamie -- a bus driver with
the Yorkville School District who was training to be an EMT -- on her
cell phone. She was on her way home from playing bingo in DeKalb, but
the conversation was abruptly cut off at 9:41 p.m. And when he tried
to call her back, there was no answer.

About an hour later, while doing paperwork at the office, his
ambulance dispatcher got a call from the DeKalb coroner's office
inquiring about Chris Olson's whereabouts.

A little later, when Olson drove past his home in Waterman on his way
to check in with the EMS team, he noticed the truck his wife had been
driving was not yet home.

Then there were those grim faces of his colleagues. And now, as his
gut clenched, the door closed behind him.

"We had a terrible accident..." his boss began. "It's your wife."

Chris vaguely remembers uttering an oh-my-God. He clearly remembers
the chief's next words -- "She passed away."

As he quickly learned, the 911 call to Waterman's EMS crew came five
minutes after Chris was disconnected from Jamie. A teenager living in
a farmhouse had heard a loud noise, then saw headlights in the field.
After negotiating the curve in the rural road, Jamie had fishtailed on
the soft gravel.

As the truck rolled over, his 23-year-old wife was ejected.

And now Chris, in addition to planning a funeral for "the rock in my
life," is left with what-ifs whirling through his head. What if
Jamie's brother had gone with her to play bingo, as planned?

What if he had left work an hour earlier and responded to the 911
call? And the big one: What if Jamie had been wearing a seat belt?

It's a sensitive subject for the 30-year-old paramedic. Despite the
fact Chris teaches EMT classes throughout the Fox Valley, he has not
worn a seat belt since 1997 -- when he was hit by a drunken driver and
trapped in a car that caught fire. The only thing that saved his life
was a correctional officer who came along with a fire extinguisher.

"I would try to wear a seat belt after the accident," he said. "But I
just couldn't do it."

But Chris always re-engaged the belt whenever Jamie drove the truck --
except on May 15, that fatal Thursday when the couple hurriedly
exchanged vehicles earlier in the day because of his wife's doctor's
appointment.

Chris can never be certain a seat belt would have saved Jamie's life
-- the truck came down on the driver's side. But he does know one
thing for sure: Now, more than ever, he is in a position to send out a
powerful message that could save lives.

On the way to DeKalb on Friday to do some last-minute errands for his
wife's funeral, Chris Olson pulled the seat belt around him and kept
it on the entire drive.

"It was hard," he admitted. "But I will keep trying to wear it."

Sun-Times News Group

> http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/970597,CST-NWS-crosby26.article

>
> At this point, I'll take anything I can get. But yes, I agree, the
> entire law is a crock. So, who got a belt ticket this weekend, anyone?
>

No - no ticket. But my son got a scare. I got a call from him around
midnight Saturday that he got pulled over by the local police, and he
wanted me to come over in case he needed help. They let him go with a
warning.

This comes on the 2nd anniversary of me being beaten and arrested
following MY stop for a seat belt violation. I've been pursuing this
with the town board since last summer, and they've taken a decidedly
"hands-off" approach. One board member asked me if I was "mouthing
off" during the stop. I got steamed at the comment and asked if that's
a legal term for requesting an explanation for the cop screaming at me
for driving too far (5 houses) before pulling over.

My son got stopped last winter for driving on a permit, and they ended
up towing his car. They tried to search it, and when he asked if they
needed a warrant, they called him a smart-ass and towed it instead. It
cost me $200. I've got a small-claims case going against the town for
that, saying that it was against the town policy (he didn't get
arrested) and that it violated due process since they have no way to
appeal it (the cop is the judge and jury in effect).

I'll be posting a web site after this case comes up in a few weeks
with some more info I got (or didn't get) from the town. The police
SOP manual was 82 pages - and they redacted about 56 of them (they
left in the section on impound tows though!). The most revealing
section is the first paragraph where they list their mission
statement, and it strongly implies that one of their duties is looking
out for the officers rights. Other manuals I've seen on the web are in
the range of 800 pages, and the mission statements directly state that
they will protect the constitutional rights of its citizens.

I wonder how the town will step around THAT? Seems like I'm heading
towards a civil rights suit against the town for failure to protect
its citizens against police abuse.

At this point, I'll take anything I can get. But yes, I agree, the
entire law is a crock. So, who got a belt ticket this weekend, anyone?

--- In stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com, "William P. Grossklas, Sr."
<grossklas@...> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, the state Civil Rights Department doesn't get it
(Wow, isn't that a surprise).
>
> The law itself is a violation of our Civil Rights.  But, hey, it
makes a job for lawyers, right?
>
> I mean, what else would you expect from a slug who works for the
government to say?  Linda Parker can give the appearance of "caring"
about civil rights without actually doing anything.
>
> Besides, isn't it a bit oxymoronic to say "State Civil Rights
Department" as if the government really cared about our civil rights?
  The terms "State" and "Civil Rights" are mutually exclusive, at least
to anyone who's got at least one functioning eye and more than a few
operating brain cells.
>
> Bill
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Keith
>   To: stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 8:33 PM
>   Subject: [stickittoclickit] MI Civil Rights Leader Says CIOT is
Biased in Kent County
>
>
>   State civil rights leader says seat belt crackdown is biased
>   by The Grand Rapids Press
>   Friday May 23, 2008, 12:47 PM
>
>   GRAND RAPIDS -- Michigan's top civil rights enforcer said Thursday
>   that Kent County Sheriff Larry Stelma's deputies cannot single out
>   young males for seat belt infractions.
>
>   Stelma and other local authorities held a news conference Monday to
>   announce the Click it or Ticket seat belt enforcement campaign during
>   the Memorial Day weekend.
>
>   Stelma said police would especially watch for young male drivers
>   because many drive without seat belts, state officials said.
>
>   State Civil Rights Department Director Linda Parker issued a statement
>   saying she was disturbed to learn of the plan.
>
>   She said Michigan bans discrimination based on age or sex, so Stelma's
>   plan would be "a clear violation of the law."
>
>   "While I understand the need to promote seat belt use among young
>   males, targeting them for different and unfair treatment because of
>   their age and sex is a clear violation of the law," she said.
>
>   "I would hope that law enforcement agencies patrolling the streets
>   this weekend apply the law equally," Parker said.
>
>   Sheriff's officials could not be reached for comment.
>
>
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/05/state_civil_rights_leader_says.html
>

The whole thing seems kind of odd to me.

If the cops are looking into passing cars closely enough to see whether
they contain one young male driver or not, surely they would also be
looking closely enough to notice whether ANY type of driver was wearing
a seat belt?  (Assuming a modern 3-point belt, not an older-style lap belt.)

So what exactly were the police trying to say?  That if they saw people
OTHER than a single young male in the car they wouldn't bother to pull
them over for a seat belt violation?  That doesn't seem likely if they
are out looking for belt violations specifically.

I don't get it.

-Paul.


Keith wrote:
> State civil rights leader says seat belt crackdown is biased
> by The Grand Rapids Press
> Friday May 23, 2008, 12:47 PM
>
> GRAND RAPIDS -- Michigan's top civil rights enforcer said Thursday
> that Kent County Sheriff Larry Stelma's deputies cannot single out
> young males for seat belt infractions.
>
> Stelma and other local authorities held a news conference Monday to
> announce the Click it or Ticket seat belt enforcement campaign during
> the Memorial Day weekend.
>
> Stelma said police would especially watch for young male drivers
> because many drive without seat belts, state officials said.
>
> State Civil Rights Department Director Linda Parker issued a statement
> saying she was disturbed to learn of the plan.
>
> She said Michigan bans discrimination based on age or sex, so Stelma's
> plan would be "a clear violation of the law."
>
> "While I understand the need to promote seat belt use among young
> males, targeting them for different and unfair treatment because of
> their age and sex is a clear violation of the law," she said.
>
> "I would hope that law enforcement agencies patrolling the streets
> this weekend apply the law equally," Parker said.
>
> Sheriff's officials could not be reached for comment.
>
>
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/05/state_civil_rights_leader_says.html
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Keith

To: stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 8:33 PM

Subject: [stickittoclickit] MI Civil Rights Leader Says CIOT is Biased in Kent County

State civil rights leader says seat belt crackdown is biased
by The Grand Rapids Press
Friday May 23, 2008, 12:47 PM

GRAND RAPIDS -- Michigan's top civil rights enforcer said Thursday
that Kent County Sheriff Larry Stelma's deputies cannot single out
young males for seat belt infractions.

Stelma and other local authorities held a news conference Monday to
announce the Click it or Ticket seat belt enforcement campaign during
the Memorial Day weekend.

Stelma said police would especially watch for young male drivers
because many drive without seat belts, state officials said.

State Civil Rights Department Director Linda Parker issued a statement
saying she was disturbed to learn of the plan.

She said Michigan bans discrimination based on age or sex, so Stelma's
plan would be "a clear violation of the law."

"While I understand the need to promote seat belt use among young
males, targeting them for different and unfair treatment because of
their age and sex is a clear violation of the law," she said.

"I would hope that law enforcement agencies patrolling the streets
this weekend apply the law equally," Parker said.

Sheriff's officials could not be reached for comment.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/05/state_civil_rights_leader_says.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Charles

To: stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 8:55 PM

Subject: [stickittoclickit] The new world order ?

The new world order now what is it ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150&pr=goog-sl

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bRsBDAiKWkM

The new world order now what is it ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150&pr=goog-sl

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bRsBDAiKWkM

State civil rights leader says seat belt crackdown is biased
by The Grand Rapids Press
Friday May 23, 2008, 12:47 PM

GRAND RAPIDS -- Michigan's top civil rights enforcer said Thursday
that Kent County Sheriff Larry Stelma's deputies cannot single out
young males for seat belt infractions.

Stelma and other local authorities held a news conference Monday to
announce the Click it or Ticket seat belt enforcement campaign during
the Memorial Day weekend.

Stelma said police would especially watch for young male drivers
because many drive without seat belts, state officials said.

State Civil Rights Department Director Linda Parker issued a statement
saying she was disturbed to learn of the plan.

She said Michigan bans discrimination based on age or sex, so Stelma's
plan would be "a clear violation of the law."

"While I understand the need to promote seat belt use among young
males, targeting them for different and unfair treatment because of
their age and sex is a clear violation of the law," she said.

"I would hope that law enforcement agencies patrolling the streets
this weekend apply the law equally," Parker said.

Sheriff's officials could not be reached for comment.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/05/state_civil_rights_leader_says.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Coxwell

To: stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:43 PM

Subject: Re: [stickittoclickit] Does anyone know what seatbelts manufacturer's are required to include?

jeshua17 wrote:
> An exemption to tickets is:
> "a motor vehicle or seating position which is not required to be
> equipped with a
> safety [seat] belt system under federal law[;]."
>
> So the question is, are backseats required to have seat belt systems?
> I've been unable to find any information on this.

I believe this is covered by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 208:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/index.html#SN208

QUOTE----------------------

Passenger Cars (Effective 1-1-68)
Lap or lap and shoulder seat belt assemblies for each designated seating
position. Except in convertibles, lap and shoulder seat belt assemblies
are required in each front outboard seating position.

----------------------/QUOTE

So basically, unless the car is 40+ years old the rear seats are
required to have a minimum of lap belts, so I don't think you'd be able
to use that as a get-out unfortunately.

I'm NOT a legal expert though. I'm only familiar with the gist of some
of those Federal standards due to my interest in older cars and having
picked up on what equipment was mandated from what dates over the years.

-Paul.

jeshua17 wrote:
> An exemption to tickets is:
> "a motor vehicle or seating position which is not required to be
> equipped with a
> safety [seat] belt system under federal law[;]."
>
> So the question is, are backseats required to have seat belt systems?
>  I've been unable to find any information on this.

I believe this is covered by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 208:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/index.html#SN208

QUOTE----------------------

Passenger Cars (Effective 1-1-68)
Lap or lap and shoulder seat belt assemblies for each designated seating
position. Except in convertibles, lap and shoulder seat belt assemblies
are required in each front outboard seating position.

----------------------/QUOTE


So basically, unless the car is 40+ years old the rear seats are
required to have a minimum of lap belts, so I don't think you'd be able
to use that as a get-out unfortunately.

I'm NOT a legal expert though.  I'm only familiar with the gist of some
of those Federal standards due to my interest in older cars and having
picked up on what equipment was mandated from what dates over the years.

-Paul.

I just got a ticket for not wearing a seat belt in the back seat of a
vehicle, in Utah, and I'm trying to figure out how to fight it.

Here's the law, though I'm not sure if it's the most recent.
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2000/bills/sbillenr/SB0012.pdf

An exemption to tickets is:
"a motor vehicle or seating position which is not required to be
equipped with a
safety [seat] belt system under federal law[;]."

So the question is, are backseats required to have seat belt systems?
  I've been unable to find any information on this.

----- Original Message -----

From: William P. Grossklas, Sr.

To: stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 10:11 AM

Subject: Re: [stickittoclickit] snagged by robots

Rick, thanks for the explanation.  Not enough white space though.  Of course it's not ALL about money, but that is a major and a driving part of it which makes it so attractive to master.  The other is control.  It's easier to fine you than to inflate the money supply or to raise taxes.  I'm sorry you fail to understand the simplicity of this.

 

Regards,

Bill

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Rick

To: stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 8:53 AM

Subject: Re: [stickittoclickit] snagged by robots

Bill,

If we follow the line of reasoning through with respect to it all being about money we cannot go past the fact that while our governments are using unbacked debt securities as money its all about nothing.  The piece of paper that they issue as currency used to represent something but now represents nothing other than a commitment repay a recipient for their efforts or support at sometime in the future, less inflation.  Therefore the taxes and fines are really nothing more than you forgiving the debt the government owes you as was represented by whatever debt instruments you held that confiscated back.  Now don't you feel better to know that you are so kind as to forgive the sins of your brothers in government. lol.  Given that money is itself nothing other than an IOU, what could be the logical reason for it to all be about money.  As you would already be aware it is about compelling others to do the will of those in leadership.  Those that seek money out of government in the form of social assistance, grants, wages, tax rebates and public services must abide by the conditions of payment laid out by their leaders.  Those that wish to keep the IOUs they now possess also must do as their government requires lest the government offset these IOUs against the obligations they deem you owe to them each time they pass a Bill through Congress, the ultimate debt instrument.  If you don't abide their courts are obligated to take care of the accounting and ensure 'equity' by making sure that their debts to you are reduced by the amount their Bill's deem that you own them for not meeting the conditions of living they placed on you.  It is a truly sad fact that so many do what the few dictate without even giving it much thought  themselves.

We can whine about it and stop short at this point and say it is all about money but that is selling you and everyone in and out of power short.  The people that pass these 'bills' do genuinely believe that they know what is best for everyone else.  The money and the enforcement of pea brained laws are simply methods of attempting socially engineer the thinking and actions of the people to correspond with their fractured vision of what life should be like if we ignore or outlaw all aspects of human nature that actually are responsible for the dichotomies that by necessity exist through all human populations through all times.

Now naturally if the people possessed even the minuscule amount of intellect required to see through the charade outlined above and could really understand how perverse some of the manipulation actually is they would be outraged.  But we can't blame the minions that follow any more than we can blame the robots in our governments, people completely driven by the Laws that limit and control the organic mind.  So, rather than looking at how we can cause the anarchy that feeds the population's appetites for greater regulation wouldn't it be smarter to seek to better understand why the masses willingly walk as lambs to the slaughter in a state of silent death and why the leaders themselves are not able to see the harm they bring to the people they THINK they are helping, why they cannot see the harm they bring to their kids and even to themselves?  Knowing the problems the dead are inflicted with makes it much easier to firstly become living ourselves and then to present any that have the capacity to hear the opportunity with some direction as to how they too can overcome the cloud that veils their perception and consciousness to that of their fractured organic minds and open themselves to their own true potential.

In all movements their are those that offer the people TheWay of balance and wholeness and there are others that offer movement for the sake of movement.  Take Hitler for example, born into this world to invoke action to move things.  He helped a lot of Souls receive the Karma of their pasts, and a lot of Souls inherit Karma they will be paying off for lifetimes into the future.  As result the future incarnation of his Soul will reap the fruit of all the tyranny and death he unleashed, but on a positive the pain and suffering he brings upon his own Soul journey will ensure that he does not fall into the complacency that many other inflict upon themselves.

Certainly, Hitler is a good model NOT to follow but none of us escape our fate. Even more importantly, to the extent that we do not ourselves rise about the automated response of opposing what we see as bad before coming to understand with depth why the other side sees their action as good with an equal amount of commitment, we doom ourselves to falling into a similar state of fractured thinking that is completely unable to perceive anything beyond the fragment that is being worked at the present.

One would think that everything I wrote above is self-evident for everyone to see but there is a reason why it can only be understood by a few and why the rest just unconsciously move back and forth in opposition with no real understanding of their opposites, nor themselves.  There is much I agree with in regards to what you are saying but I respectfully point out that there is far more about motivation that you do not apparently see and this works as much against your goals as it does for them.

Rick


William P. Grossklas, Sr. wrote:

Greetings Paul:

 

I used to think that the "law" was about securing justice.  But this article about people violating the law and being caught by remote control again and again reminds me that in this day and age, it is not.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/04/do0406.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_04052008

 

Victimless "laws" have become the norm.  I always thought, also, that law was about crime or equity; in other words, someone was injured and the courts were supposed to be there to dispense justice in either realm.

 

But what do we have in the case of things such as traffic and seatbelt laws or having too much trash in your garbage can so that the lid can't be fully closed?  Neither crime nor equity.  So who benefits.  Duh, as a fine is involved, the state.

 

The political types who reign over us (though they're supposed to work for us) cannot be consistently wrong if they are truly concerned for us, for if they were, then some of the myriad asinine "laws" passed by the slugs in government would eventually be repealed.  But, gee, they never are.  Year after year, they just keep bringing more loot into the coffers of the state.  And there are some people who naively say it is NOT about the money.  Bullfeathers!

 

The whole system is corrupt and people need to start thinking anarchy.  As anyone knows who does even a little reading of history, even the concept of "limited government" is totally flawed and will eventually lead to tyranny.

 

Regards,

Bill

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Rick

To: stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 8:53 AM

Subject: Re: [stickittoclickit] snagged by robots

Bill,

If we follow the line of reasoning through with respect to it all being about money we cannot go past the fact that while our governments are using unbacked debt securities as money its all about nothing.  The piece of paper that they issue as currency used to represent something but now represents nothing other than a commitment repay a recipient for their efforts or support at sometime in the future, less inflation.  Therefore the taxes and fines are really nothing more than you forgiving the debt the government owes you as was represented by whatever debt instruments you held that confiscated back.  Now don't you feel better to know that you are so kind as to forgive the sins of your brothers in government. lol.  Given that money is itself nothing other than an IOU, what could be the logical reason for it to all be about money.  As you would already be aware it is about compelling others to do the will of those in leadership.  Those that seek money out of government in the form of social assistance, grants, wages, tax rebates and public services must abide by the conditions of payment laid out by their leaders.  Those that wish to keep the IOUs they now possess also must do as their government requires lest the government offset these IOUs against the obligations they deem you owe to them each time they pass a Bill through Congress, the ultimate debt instrument.  If you don't abide their courts are obligated to take care of the accounting and ensure 'equity' by making sure that their debts to you are reduced by the amount their Bill's deem that you own them for not meeting the conditions of living they placed on you.  It is a truly sad fact that so many do what the few dictate without even giving it much thought  themselves.

We can whine about it and stop short at this point and say it is all about money but that is selling you and everyone in and out of power short.  The people that pass these 'bills' do genuinely believe that they know what is best for everyone else.  The money and the enforcement of pea brained laws are simply methods of attempting socially engineer the thinking and actions of the people to correspond with their fractured vision of what life should be like if we ignore or outlaw all aspects of human nature that actually are responsible for the dichotomies that by necessity exist through all human populations through all times.

Now naturally if the people possessed even the minuscule amount of intellect required to see through the charade outlined above and could really understand how perverse some of the manipulation actually is they would be outraged.  But we can't blame the minions that follow any more than we can blame the robots in our governments, people completely driven by the Laws that limit and control the organic mind.  So, rather than looking at how we can cause the anarchy that feeds the population's appetites for greater regulation wouldn't it be smarter to seek to better understand why the masses willingly walk as lambs to the slaughter in a state of silent death and why the leaders themselves are not able to see the harm they bring to the people they THINK they are helping, why they cannot see the harm they bring to their kids and even to themselves?  Knowing the problems the dead are inflicted with makes it much easier to firstly become living ourselves and then to present any that have the capacity to hear the opportunity with some direction as to how they too can overcome the cloud that veils their perception and consciousness to that of their fractured organic minds and open themselves to their own true potential.

In all movements their are those that offer the people TheWay of balance and wholeness and there are others that offer movement for the sake of movement.  Take Hitler for example, born into this world to invoke action to move things.  He helped a lot of Souls receive the Karma of their pasts, and a lot of Souls inherit Karma they will be paying off for lifetimes into the future.  As result the future incarnation of his Soul will reap the fruit of all the tyranny and death he unleashed, but on a positive the pain and suffering he brings upon his own Soul journey will ensure that he does not fall into the complacency that many other inflict upon themselves.

Certainly, Hitler is a good model NOT to follow but none of us escape our fate. Even more importantly, to the extent that we do not ourselves rise about the automated response of opposing what we see as bad before coming to understand with depth why the other side sees their action as good with an equal amount of commitment, we doom ourselves to falling into a similar state of fractured thinking that is completely unable to perceive anything beyond the fragment that is being worked at the present.

One would think that everything I wrote above is self-evident for everyone to see but there is a reason why it can only be understood by a few and why the rest just unconsciously move back and forth in opposition with no real understanding of their opposites, nor themselves.  There is much I agree with in regards to what you are saying but I respectfully point out that there is far more about motivation that you do not apparently see and this works as much against your goals as it does for them.

Rick


William P. Grossklas, Sr. wrote:

Greetings Paul:

 

I used to think that the "law" was about securing justice.  But this article about people violating the law and being caught by remote control again and again reminds me that in this day and age, it is not.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/04/do0406.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_04052008

 

Victimless "laws" have become the norm.  I always thought, also, that law was about crime or equity; in other words, someone was injured and the courts were supposed to be there to dispense justice in either realm.

 

But what do we have in the case of things such as traffic and seatbelt laws or having too much trash in your garbage can so that the lid can't be fully closed?  Neither crime nor equity.  So who benefits.  Duh, as a fine is involved, the state.

 

The political types who reign over us (though they're supposed to work for us) cannot be consistently wrong if they are truly concerned for us, for if they were, then some of the myriad asinine "laws" passed by the slugs in government would eventually be repealed.  But, gee, they never are.  Year after year, they just keep bringing more loot into the coffers of the state.  And there are some people who naively say it is NOT about the money.  Bullfeathers!

 

The whole system is corrupt and people need to start thinking anarchy.  As anyone knows who does even a little reading of history, even the concept of "limited government" is totally flawed and will eventually lead to tyranny.

 

Regards,

Bill

 

 

Greetings Paul:

 

I used to think that the "law" was about securing justice.  But this article about people violating the law and being caught by remote control again and again reminds me that in this day and age, it is not.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/04/do0406.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_04052008

 

Victimless "laws" have become the norm.  I always thought, also, that law was about crime or equity; in other words, someone was injured and the courts were supposed to be there to dispense justice in either realm.

 

But what do we have in the case of things such as traffic and seatbelt laws or having too much trash in your garbage can so that the lid can't be fully closed?  Neither crime nor equity.  So who benefits.  Duh, as a fine is involved, the state.

 

The political types who reign over us (though they're supposed to work for us) cannot be consistently wrong if they are truly concerned for us, for if they were, then some of the myriad asinine "laws" passed by the slugs in government would eventually be repealed.  But, gee, they never are.  Year after year, they just keep bringing more loot into the coffers of the state.  And there are some people who naively say it is NOT about the money.  Bullfeathers!

 

The whole system is corrupt and people need to start thinking anarchy.  As anyone knows who does even a little reading of history, even the concept of "limited government" is totally flawed and will eventually lead to tyranny.

 

Regards,

Bill

 

 

yup.


--- In stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com, Paul Coxwell
<paulcoxwell@...> wrote:
>
> Another push toward a one-world government, in practice if not in
name.
>
> -Paul.
>
>
> Charles wrote:
> > http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26277
> >
> > The Nanny State Goes Global
> > by Thomas P. Kilgannon
> > Posted: 04/30/2008
> >
> > Dulles, Virginia -- "We know big government does not have all
the
> > answers. We know there's not a program for every problem."
Perhaps
> > Bill Clinton wouldn't mind sharing those sentiments from his
1996
> > State of the Union Address with his friends at the United
Nations.
> > In recent years, the UN has taken to heart Tip O'Neil's
observation
> > that "all politics is local," and embarked on a series of
> > initiatives that would be best left to city councils the world
over.
> >
> > Article 1 of the UN Charter informs us that the United Nations
was
> > created "to maintain international peace and security," but
today,
> > the subject consuming the global guardians is traffic safety.
War is
> > raging in the Middle East. Genocide persists in Sudan.
International
> > trafficking in sex slaves is a growth industry, and food
shortages
> > are hurting the most vulnerable populations. Yet, a few weeks
ago
> > the UN General Assembly approved the first global conference on
> > roads and traffic to be held next year in Russia.
> >
> > Delegates to the conference will undoubtedly organize a new UN
Meter
> > Maid Brigade as an auxiliary to the vaunted Peacekeeping
Department.
> > And we can only hope that the U.S. delegate raises for
discussion
> > all those unpaid parking tickets diplomats have racked up in New
> > York City.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, the utility of public education regarding
> > traffic safety is significant, but filling pot holes and
preventing
> > jay walking is not the role of the UN Security Council or the
> > General Assembly. Critics will argue that there is nothing wrong
> > with government representatives discussing traffic issues. In
> > theory, no. But when nations assemble under the supervision of
the
> > UN, innocuous discussions often turn into formal conferences,
which
> > produce binding treaties.
> >
> > The UN's traffic safety conference could result in global
mandates
> > for community planners in Peoria. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon
> > explained it thus: "Now we must ensure that the UN Conference
[on
> > road safety] is not just another talking shop, but secures real
> > commitments and takes real action to reverse the tide of global
road
> > deaths."
> >
> > What looks like an innocent conference to urge drivers to wear
their
> > seat belts is really a Mack Truck speeding down the highway
toward
> > an International Traffic Treaty. The signs are all present. A
> > commission has been created (The Commission for Global Road
Safety).
> > It has written a report (Make Roads Safe). The report declares
road
> > conditions in "crisis" and traffic fatalities an "epidemic." The
> > World Bank has created a "Global Road Safety Facility" to
collect
> > funds. The traffic safety agenda has been adopted into the
> > Millennium Development Goals – the golden calf of UN utopians.
All
> > that is needed now, we are told, is an "Action Plan," – i.e., a
> > treaty – and a $300 million budget, of which the United States
will
> > be expected to fund the largest portion.
> >
> > But crosswalks and speed limits are not the only local issues
that
> > have lately grabbed the attention of the international aldermen.
> >
> > In 2005, the UN Framework Convention on Tobacco Control took
effect
> > after being ratified by only 20 percent of the world's nations.
The
> > United States signed the pact in 2004. Last month, Senator Dick
> > Durbin and nine of his colleagues sent a letter to the President
> > urging him to send the treaty to the Senate for ratification.
The
> > treaty demands curbs on advertisements and hefty taxes on sales
of
> > tobacco products and is particularly egregious because it seeks
to
> > do that which opponents of tobacco in the U.S. have not been
able to
> > do -- ban cigarettes.
> >
> > Nations that ratify the convention are required to "implement
tax
> > policies and…price policies, on tobacco products so as to
contribute
> > to the health objectives aimed at reducing tobacco consumption."
> > Another provision of the treaty mandates the size, shape and
> > language of warnings that are to be placed on tobacco product
> > packaging.
> >
> > The UN is now working on a follow-on treaty to prevent tobacco
> > smuggling and some countries, according to Reuters, are
insisting it
> > include a "licensing system" for suppliers and distributors, as
well
> > as a mechanism to track shipments of cigarettes.
> >
> > The nanny staters at the UN are also trying to wrap their arms
> > around the issue of obesity. Professor Philip James, the
chairman of
> > the International Obesity Taskforce, recently suggested that the
> > only way to trim the fat is to beef up the bureaucracy by
adopting
> > an international treaty. He called on the UN to do just that.
This
> > is global government gone wild.
> >
> > Shortly after he was sworn in as Secretary General in 1997, Kofi
> > Annan told the International Women's Forum in New York: "We have
to
> > show that [the United Nations] deals not in dusty abstractions,
but
> > in crucial life-and-death matters affecting the well-being of
all
> > women, men, and children, every citizen of this planet."
> >
> > This is where the UN is headed. The global body shows little
> > interest in the greatest challenges of our time because its
desire
> > is to wet-nurse the world.
> >
> > Mr. Kilgannon is the president of Freedom Alliance, an
educational
> > foundation dedicated to the preservation of American
sovereignty. He
> > is the author of "Diplomatic Divorce: Why America Should End Its
> > Love Affair With the United Nations."
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

The truth is that the UN is NOT a peace-making organization; it is a
war-making organization; just as is every police department.  The supreme
exercise of control in both cases is deadly force.  It is, ultimately, obey
or die.  Someone tell me how that makes these "peace-making" organizations.

Regards,
Bill



----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Coxwell" <paulcoxwell@...>
To: <stickittoclickit@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [stickittoclickit] UN Treaty on Road safety- great article by
Thomas Kilgannon:


> Another push toward a one-world government, in practice if not in name.
>
> -Paul.
>
>
> Charles wrote:
>> http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26277
>>
>> The Nanny State Goes Global
>> by Thomas P. Kilgannon
>> Posted: 04/30/2008
>>
>> Dulles, Virginia -- "We know big government does not have all the
>> answers. We know there's not a program for every problem." Perhaps
>> Bill Clinton wouldn't mind sharing those sentiments from his 1996
>> State of the Union Address with his friends at the United Nations.
>> In recent years, the UN has taken to heart Tip O'Neil's observation
>> that "all politics is local," and embarked on a series of
>> initiatives that would be best left to city councils the world over.
>>
>> Article 1 of the UN Charter informs us that the United Nations was
>> created "to maintain international peace and security," but today,
>> the subject consuming the global guardians is traffic safety. War is
>> raging in the Middle East. Genocide persists in Sudan. International
>> trafficking in sex slaves is a growth industry, and food shortages
>> are hurting the most vulnerable populations. Yet, a few weeks ago
>> the UN General Assembly approved the first global conference on
>> roads and traffic to be held next year in Russia.
>>
>> Delegates to the conference will undoubtedly organize a new UN Meter
>> Maid Brigade as an auxiliary to the vaunted Peacekeeping Department.
>> And we can only hope that the U.S. delegate raises for discussion
>> all those unpaid parking tickets diplomats have racked up in New
>> York City.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, the utility of public education regarding
>> traffic safety is significant, but filling pot holes and preventing
>> jay walking is not the role of the UN Security Council or the
>> General Assembly. Critics will argue that there is nothing wrong
>> with government representatives discussing traffic issues. In
>> theory, no. But when nations assemble under the supervision of the
>> UN, innocuous discussions often turn into formal conferences, which
>> produce binding treaties.
>>
>> The UN's traffic safety conference could result in global mandates
>> for community planners in Peoria. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon
>> explained it thus: "Now we must ensure that the UN Conference [on
>> road safety] is not just another talking shop, but secures real
>> commitments and takes real action to reverse the tide of global road
>> deaths."
>>
>> What looks like an innocent conference to urge drivers to wear their
>> seat belts is really a Mack Truck speeding down the highway toward
>> an International Traffic Treaty. The signs are all present. A
>> commission has been created (The Commission for Global Road Safety).
>> It has written a report (Make Roads Safe). The report declares road
>> conditions in "crisis" and traffic fatalities an "epidemic." The
>> World Bank has created a "Global Road Safety Facility" to collect
>> funds. The traffic safety agenda has been adopted into the
>> Millennium Development Goals – the golden calf of UN utopians. All
>> that is needed now, we are told, is an "Action Plan," – i.e., a
>> treaty – and a $300 million budget, of which the United States will
>> be expected to fund the largest portion.
>>
>> But crosswalks and speed limits are not the only local issues that
>> have lately grabbed the attention of the international aldermen.
>>
>> In 2005, the UN Framework Convention on Tobacco Control took effect
>> after being ratified by only 20 percent of the world's nations. The
>> United States signed the pact in 2004. Last month, Senator Dick
>> Durbin and nine of his colleagues sent a letter to the President
>> urging him to send the treaty to the Senate for ratification. The
>> treaty demands curbs on advertisements and hefty taxes on sales of
>> tobacco products and is particularly egregious because it seeks to
>> do that which opponents of tobacco in the U.S. have not been able to
>> do -- ban cigarettes.
>>
>> Nations that ratify the convention are required to "implement tax
>> policies and…price policies, on tobacco products so as to contribute
>> to the health objectives aimed at reducing tobacco consumption."
>> Another provision of the treaty mandates the size, shape and
>> language of warnings that are to be placed on tobacco product
>> packaging.
>>
>> The UN is now working on a follow-on treaty to prevent tobacco
>> smuggling and some countries, according to Reuters, are insisting it
>> include a "licensing system" for suppliers and distributors, as well
>> as a mechanism to track shipments of cigarettes.
>>
>> The nanny staters at the UN are also trying to wrap their arms
>> around the issue of obesity. Professor Philip James, the chairman of
>> the International Obesity Taskforce, recently suggested that the
>> only way to trim the fat is to beef up the bureaucracy by adopting
>> an international treaty. He called on the UN to do just that. This
>> is global government gone wild.
>>
>> Shortly after he was sworn in as Secretary General in 1997, Kofi
>> Annan told the International Women's Forum in New York: "We have to
>> show that [the United Nations] deals not in dusty abstractions, but
>> in crucial life-and-death matters affecting the well-being of all
>> women, men, and children, every citizen of this planet."
>>
>> This is where the UN is headed. The global body shows little
>> interest in the greatest challenges of our time because its desire
>> is to wet-nurse the world.
>>
>> Mr. Kilgannon is the president of Freedom Alliance, an educational
>> foundation dedicated to the preservation of American sovereignty. He
>> is the author of "Diplomatic Divorce: Why America Should End Its
>> Love Affair With the United Nations."
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Another push toward a one-world government, in practice if not in name.

-Paul.


Charles wrote:
> http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26277
>
> The Nanny State Goes Global
> by Thomas P. Kilgannon
> Posted: 04/30/2008
>
> Dulles, Virginia -- "We know big government does not have all the
> answers. We know there's not a program for every problem." Perhaps
> Bill Clinton wouldn't mind sharing those sentiments from his 1996
> State of the Union Address with his friends at the United Nations.
> In recent years, the UN has taken to heart Tip O'Neil's observation
> that "all politics is local," and embarked on a series of
> initiatives that would be best left to city councils the world over.
>
> Article 1 of the UN Charter informs us that the United Nations was
> created "to maintain international peace and security," but today,
> the subject consuming the global guardians is traffic safety. War is
> raging in the Middle East. Genocide persists in Sudan. International
> trafficking in sex slaves is a growth industry, and food shortages
> are hurting the most vulnerable populations. Yet, a few weeks ago
> the UN General Assembly approved the first global conference on
> roads and traffic to be held next year in Russia.
>
> Delegates to the conference will undoubtedly organize a new UN Meter
> Maid Brigade as an auxiliary to the vaunted Peacekeeping Department.
> And we can only hope that the U.S. delegate raises for discussion
> all those unpaid parking tickets diplomats have racked up in New
> York City.
>
> Don't get me wrong, the utility of public education regarding
> traffic safety is significant, but filling pot holes and preventing
> jay walking is not the role of the UN Security Council or the
> General Assembly. Critics will argue that there is nothing wrong
> with government representatives discussing traffic issues. In
> theory, no. But when nations assemble under the supervision of the
> UN, innocuous discussions often turn into formal conferences, which
> produce binding treaties.
>
> The UN's traffic safety conference could result in global mandates
> for community planners in Peoria. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon
> explained it thus: "Now we must ensure that the UN Conference [on
> road safety] is not just another talking shop, but secures real
> commitments and takes real action to reverse the tide of global road
> deaths."
>
> What looks like an innocent conference to urge drivers to wear their
> seat belts is really a Mack Truck speeding down the highway toward
> an International Traffic Treaty. The signs are all present. A
> commission has been created (The Commission for Global Road Safety).
> It has written a report (Make Roads Safe). The report declares road
> conditions in "crisis" and traffic fatalities an "epidemic." The
> World Bank has created a "Global Road Safety Facility" to collect
> funds. The traffic safety agenda has been adopted into the
> Millennium Development Goals – the golden calf of UN utopians. All
> that is needed now, we are told, is an "Action Plan," – i.e., a
> treaty – and a $300 million budget, of which the United States will
> be expected to fund the largest portion.
>
> But crosswalks and speed limits are not the only local issues that
> have lately grabbed the attention of the international aldermen.
>
> In 2005, the UN Framework Convention on Tobacco Control took effect
> after being ratified by only 20 percent of the world's nations. The
> United States signed the pact in 2004. Last month, Senator Dick
> Durbin and nine of his colleagues sent a letter to the President
> urging him to send the treaty to the Senate for ratification. The
> treaty demands curbs on advertisements and hefty taxes on sales of
> tobacco products and is particularly egregious because it seeks to
> do that which opponents of tobacco in the U.S. have not been able to
> do -- ban cigarettes.
>
> Nations that ratify the convention are required to "implement tax
> policies and…price policies, on tobacco products so as to contribute
> to the health objectives aimed at reducing tobacco consumption."
> Another provision of the treaty mandates the size, shape and
> language of warnings that are to be placed on tobacco product
> packaging.
>
> The UN is now working on a follow-on treaty to prevent tobacco
> smuggling and some countries, according to Reuters, are insisting it
> include a "licensing system" for suppliers and distributors, as well
> as a mechanism to track shipments of cigarettes.
>
> The nanny staters at the UN are also trying to wrap their arms
> around the issue of obesity. Professor Philip James, the chairman of
> the International Obesity Taskforce, recently suggested that the
> only way to trim the fat is to beef up the bureaucracy by adopting
> an international treaty. He called on the UN to do just that. This
> is global government gone wild.
>
> Shortly after he was sworn in as Secretary General in 1997, Kofi
> Annan told the International Women's Forum in New York: "We have to
> show that [the United Nations] deals not in dusty abstractions, but
> in crucial life-and-death matters affecting the well-being of all
> women, men, and children, every citizen of this planet."
>
> This is where the UN is headed. The global body shows little
> interest in the greatest challenges of our time because its desire
> is to wet-nurse the world.
>
> Mr. Kilgannon is the president of Freedom Alliance, an educational
> foundation dedicated to the preservation of American sovereignty. He
> is the author of "Diplomatic Divorce: Why America Should End Its
> Love Affair With the United Nations."
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>