SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Job]

Been using that for years, you can get 'gritty' swarfega.

 

[Job]

This is an LPG vehicle in a crash, they used to be banned in the Mersey tunnels.


View: https://gfycat.com/AliveImmaculateCaiman

 

[DaGaffer]

What, you mean the Data Protection Act 1998? Why is that going away?

Money. That's why the DPA (which is the UK implementation of an EU directive) will be progressively watered down post-Brexit. They'll claim it's to do with security, but it will be money.

 

[Job]

It has allready died..the police use databases updated by insurance companies to accuse you of having no insurance, if there is a mistake..and they are quite common, then it becomes your responsibility to prove otherwise, when in reality you should be sueing the Police for incorrect data held on you.
It may seem a bit purile, but the attitude allready of the authorities to the consequences of incorrect personal databases is terrible and a good forewarning of how they will use them against you in the future.
These databases are being used daily as an absolute point of truth with very unclear paths to resolve or prove your innocence, it will get worse and harder for people to have them changed.
Nightmare scenarios of coming home and finding someone else owns your life and home are on the horizon as the digital version of you becomes more important than the reality.

 

[Lamp]

What happened when I Googled "bacon and boobies":

 

[Ormorof]

It has allready died..the police use databases updated by insurance companies to accuse you of having no insurance, if there is a mistake..and they are quite common, then it becomes your responsibility to prove otherwise, when in reality you should be sueing the Police for incorrect data held on you.
It may seem a bit purile, but the attitude allready of the authorities to the consequences of incorrect personal databases is terrible and a good forewarning of how they will use them against you in the future.
These databases are being used daily as an absolute point of truth with very unclear paths to resolve or prove your innocence, it will get worse and harder for people to have them changed.
Nightmare scenarios of coming home and finding someone else owns your life and home are on the horizon as the digital version of you becomes more important than the reality.

Those nightmare scenarios you describe sound far less plausible in a society saturated with data about us, would make it far harder to fake

 

[Raven]

It has allready died..the police use databases updated by insurance companies to accuse you of having no insurance, if there is a mistake..and they are quite common, then it becomes your responsibility to prove otherwise, when in reality you should be sueing the Police for incorrect data held on you.
It may seem a bit purile, but the attitude allready of the authorities to the consequences of incorrect personal databases is terrible and a good forewarning of how they will use them against you in the future.
These databases are being used daily as an absolute point of truth with very unclear paths to resolve or prove your innocence, it will get worse and harder for people to have them changed.
Nightmare scenarios of coming home and finding someone else owns your life and home are on the horizon as the digital version of you becomes more important than the reality.

You're talking bollocks yet again, Job.

The insurance database is there so as Mr Scumbag is driving about without it and he happens upon a popo car, the number plate recognition system checks for insurance, so Mr Scumbag has to prove he is insured...chances are he isn't. Far more efficient than randomly pulling people over and it means those of us that live within the law get pestered less.

 

[Lamp]

This is an LPG vehicle in a crash, they used to be banned in the Mersey tunnels.


View: https://gfycat.com/AliveImmaculateCaiman

Fireball almost took out that fella in white about to cross the road.

On a side note, why do foreign pedestrian crossings look so naff?

 

[Raven]

Because, generally, they are naff

 

[Job]

You're talking bollocks yet again, Job.

The insurance database is there so as Mr Scumbag is driving about without it and he happens upon a popo car, the number plate recognition system checks for insurance, so Mr Scumbag has to prove he is insured...chances are he isn't. Far more efficient than randomly pulling people over and it means those of us that live within the law get pestered less.

You response isnt even anything to do with my actual point.

 

[Raven]

You were complaining that the police have an insurance database that is updated by insurance companies...

Look.

the police use databases updated by insurance companies to accuse you of having no insurance

I am not sure who you would prefer it to be updated by but whatevs. For some reason you appear to have a problem with the police not randomly pulling people over to see if they have insurance or not.

Sure, I imagine there are one or two faults, once in a blue moon, for which you would get a producer, the same way everyone pulled over, without the docs in the pocket did a few years ago.

I don't think you even know what you are typing any more. you're a parody of a parody of a cliche.

 

[Job]

I WAS complaing about the lack of transparency and any kind of legal framework put in place for roadside investigation into incorrect databases, they are in violation of whats left of the DPA, but 99% of coppers call the tow truck and leave people with a 400 quid bill.
If your insurance conpany is open and you can get through or you have tge docyments in your car, youre ok.
This lack of attention to due process is a sign if the times.
'Your breaking the law mate..it says so on my screen.
We are heading for a future where databases can ruin lives.

 

[Raven]

Never heard of that happening before.

Maybe the people you know that had it happen to them were pricks? Not just a mate of a mate on Facebook. If I was a copper trying to give someone a simple producer and they decided to be a prick for no reason, I would tow them too.

Frankly I wish the police would do even more to catch the no insurance, no MOT, no worries cunts.

24 hours to produce your alleged documents or your car gets crushed or sold for charity, I would be happy with that.

 

[Job]

Are you having your own private argument here

 

[Scouse]

@Job makes a point about heading towards a future where databases can ruin lives. That's true tbh. I'd argue it already is so in many cases .

When it comes to biometrics that's even worse because the more a form of identification is trusted the harder it becomes to prove it's not the right ID when there's been a mistake or fraud. Imagine trying to argue that you're you, when some biometric data has been fraudulently tampered with - and the relevant authorities are utterly intransigent in their faith in that method of identification?


But @Job's being a knob over the police databases. The fact that insurance companies feed into plod's databases is a good thing. Plod is so dumb anyway that having a computer tell him what is and isn't a crime is far more reliable and desireable than him deciding for himself.

 

[Tom]

I WAS complaing about the lack of transparency and any kind of legal framework put in place for roadside investigation into incorrect databases, they are in violation of whats left of the DPA, but 99% of coppers call the tow truck and leave people with a 400 quid bill.
If your insurance conpany is open and you can get through or you have tge docyments in your car, youre ok.
This lack of attention to due process is a sign if the times.
'Your breaking the law mate..it says so on my screen.
We are heading for a future where databases can ruin lives.

Who is in violation exactly? It's the responsibility of the insurance company to ensure that details are uploaded - not the police. If you can't prove you're insured and the police don't know either, then damn right your vehicle gets towed and impounded. And no, the police aren't responsible for those impound fees because they're not the ones who made the mistake - that's your insurance company's fault.

How else would you suggest it's done, if not with a database? And to be frank, how many of these "the police took my car but I was insured rofl" stories are bullshitters who took out a policy they then cancelled 10 days later, while keeping a copy of the certificate in the vehicle?

 

[Raven]

Are you having your own private argument here

No, come on. You must know someone that has had their car towed at a cost of £400, to bring it up? Unless it was the voices again?

You do understand that uninsured drivers are scum right? And that driving without proper insurance is illegal right? Who would you like to enforce the law if not the police?

How better for the police to check, quickly and without fuss (as in, no longer pulling people over for random checks) whether or not a vehicle is insured?

 

[Job]

Your victim blaming highlights the problem..it would seem all the imaginary people you present in this scenario are automatically shysters who deserve it, and you fully agree that if the compuyer says no the Police should blindly follow through.
Im not even complaining about the database..its the utter lack of process at the roadside to challenge it and that is becoming the norm and the EXACT thing the DPA was supposed to prevent.
It used to be five days to produce and you were given the benefit of the doubt.
Now its car seized on the spot because our database says no.
That running over our rights is the start of a dystopian future for us all and of course certain people think its great..until it happens to them.
What happens when face recog mistakenly marks you as a terrorist or an IP address has you accessing child porn, the jump to guilty by database has been taken very quickly indeed.

 

[Scouse]

its the utter lack of process at the roadside to challenge it

Roadside is not the proper place for a challenge at all.

"victim blaming"

Just a guess but 99.99% of cases will indeed by shysters. The tiny number of poor unfortunates will get their cars back and expenses refunded if there's a mistake. Any reasonable person would take that on the chin.

I think the reason for your outrage at this is that you or your mates have spent half your lives driving around on a dodgy insurance card and now you have to pay because you know the pigs have got you.

 

[Raven]

Your victim blaming highlights the problem..it would seem all the imaginary people you present in this scenario are automatically shysters who deserve it, and you fully agree that if the compuyer says no the Police should blindly follow through.
Im not even complaining about the database..its the utter lack of process at the roadside to challenge it and that is becoming the norm and the EXACT thing the DPA was supposed to prevent.
It used to be five days to produce and you were given the benefit of the doubt.
Now its car seized on the spot because our database says no.
That running over our rights is the start of a dystopian future for us all and of course certain people think its great..until it happens to them.
What happens when face recog mistakenly marks you as a terrorist or an IP address has you accessing child porn, the jump to guilty by database has been taken very quickly indeed.

Join me in reality for one moment please.

The police do not pull you over and tow your vehicle if it comes up as no insurance. They ask you to produce your documents, which you currently have 7 days to do so.

If you can't produce your insurance documents in 7 days then I think its pretty safe to say you aren't insured.

The data protection act has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[Job]

...Im not complaining about people without insurance getting stopped...
Im complaining in the odd time it is a database failure, the onous is on you to prove their database is wrong.
In that scenario the database is clearly providing false witness and accusing you of a crime.
Thats a CLEAR violation of the DPA..but the police are not interested because justice comes at a cost they know you are unlikely to risk.
And you dont have 7 days anymore, they changed that because it kinda made the database irrelevant.

 

[Raven]

What? It literally has nothing to do with the data protection act. What are you on about?

As for 7 days. I think you have been reading rubbish again.

Being stopped by the police while driving: your rights - GOV.UK

They can seize it if you don't have a licence or insurance and I would assume MOT but it isn't mentioned. I imagine they will if you start throwing your toys.

All of which can easily be checked and I have never heard of anyone being wrongly accused of not having a licence or insurance. I mean the whole tax/insurance tie up, while being a pain is pretty good.

 

[Scouse]

The police do not pull you over and tow your vehicle if it comes up as no insurance. They ask you to produce your documents, which you currently have 7 days to do so.

Quick bit of cursory googling show that they can, in fact, have your car towed on the spot if they suspect no insurance.

It's easy to get your car back though - you simply produce your documents - or the police should give you the option to phone the insurers from the roadside if the database is innacurate (which trash's @Job's claim that there's no roadside right of challenge).

So @Job databases are a non-issue in this case. 1) You get pulled 2) you have the right to prove you're insured if the database is innacurate 3) if you can't proved you're insured then you get a chance to produce documents later 4) if you're insured you get all your money back 5) if you're not you're a dirty criminal cunt.

Based on the factual 1-5 above, @Job - why do you have a problem with this? An actual answer to this exact question would be nice


Edit: The DPA has nothing to do with this. The DPA allows insurance companies and the police to legally exchange data. All of this is absolutely fine.

 

[Job]

Because it could be the middle of the night and the Police WILL leave you at the roadside with no car.
I mean there are ways..keep a copy of your insurance docs on your phone..they may accept that.
Its a tiny problem, Im only pointing it out as an example of how we are letting databases rule our lives and running over rights.
We have gone from 7 day producer to a Police database that is seemingly unacountable that can really end up in you left with your family at the rosdside in the middle of the night in a dodgy area.
And no one seems to think that isnt a scary look into our future

 

[Job]

Quick bit of cursory googling show that they can, in fact, have your car towed on the spot if they suspect no insurance.

It's easy to get your car back though - you simply produce your documents - or the police should give you the option to phone the insurers from the roadside if the database is innacurate (which trash's @Job's claim that there's no roadside right of challenge).

So @Job databases are a non-issue in this case. 1) You get pulled 2) you have the right to prove you're insured if the database is innacurate 3) if you can't proved you're insured then you get a chance to produce documents later 4) if you're insured you get all your money back 5) if you're not you're a dirty criminal cunt.

Based on the factual 1-5 above, @Job - why do you have a problem with this? An actual answer to this exact question would be nice


Edit: The DPA has nothing to do with this. The DPA allows insurance companies and the police to legally exchange data. All of this is absolutely fine.

Its got nothing to do with data sharing..its incorrect databases and their consequences for you..the DPA is very clear that its an offence to hold incorrect data on an individual if it causes them harm.
And yes you can.prove your innocence later..but your car is still taken off you on the spot.
There is no official process to challenge..you can run home and get the docs or ring your insurance company...but the crime by the Police is still there, they have accused you of a crime using incorrect evidence and give you no legal basis to challenge it.

 

[Scouse]

Its got nothing to do with data sharing..its incorrect databases and their consequences for you..the DPA is very clear that its an offence to hold incorrect data on an individual if it causes them harm.
And yes you can.prove your innocence later..but your car is still taken off you on the spot.

You've not taken into account the evidence provided in your answer @Job

1) You can ring your insurers if there's an error in the database - so you don't have to get your car taken off you on the spot.
2) If you can't get hold of your insurance company, or show them your documents on your phone, then you get time to provide the information and have any costs reimbursed.
3) The DPA allows for redress in the case of incorrect information - which is clearly the case here - so no "offence" - just standard, and very easy and quick, corrective procedure.

So - the "consequences" in the vanishingly rare case of a massive cluster fuck are - err, just not that bad. Especially when balanced against the po-po catching nasty chavs without MOT's or insurance who kill people, regularly.

I don't even think there's a teacup to have a storm in here. It's nice, sensible, business as usual. Well done UK.gov.

 

[Job]

Ive answered those points.

You dont get time , the car is confiscated on the spot.

 

[CorNokZ]

I can just imagine how it goes. You get pulled over and asked for your papers to which you reply are in the boot of your car. You get out and walk to the back of the car, only to have the copper jump in the driver's seat and speed off with your car.

I'm fairly certain that they give you a chance to provide the papers rather than just knicking your wheels on the spot

 

[Scouse]

Ive answered those points.

You dont get time , the car is confiscated on the spot.

You do get to address it on the spot. Even if you can't address it on the spot, you get time to prove it without going to court and all your money back.

Regardless - the other question, which I already asked you:

Should we A) worry about potentially mildly inconveniencing a vanishingly small amount of people, who have quick and easy access to redress, or B) should we worry about the common problem of uninsured, un-MOT'd criminals who kill about 200 people a year.

You can't deal with B) without a tiny amount of A).

Which is it? A or B?

I've boiled it down to letters so you don't even have to write a sentence, I know you don't love the words.

 

[Raven]

Yup, if you are a prick to the police for no reason then you must be pretty stupid in general.

If you aren't a prick then they fall back on their discretion and ask you to produce your documents.

But only really really stupid people are pricks to the police for no reason, or in this case, people with no insurance.

Not sure how it is in Sweden but its all on a register now, so anyone can enter a car's reg to see if it is taxed and MOT'd. I am pretty sure you can't tax an uninsured car either and if not in use then they must be SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) which is nay vehicle not in use and off the road.