akirk wrote:fortunately the Greens will never get into power - it is always a shame when a party has a core good idea (looking after our planet) and then struggles to turn that into a full set of policies so adds on wacky impractical ideas!
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:I'm afraid that, for me, this applies to all the parties except the main 2. If you have no experience of government (and in some cases, have barely ever had an MP) how can you expect the public to trust you with the administration of the country? (not that I "trust" the others, but at least they've done the job before...). Moreover, if your entire platform is built on one particular theme - environmentalism, restricting immigration, independence for Scotland, etc. and you don't really have any policies for other mundane things like managing the economy, or education, or health etc. how do you expect the voting public to take you seriously - answer, they don't!
WhoseGeneration wrote:Seems to me a rather negative view, in that, you consider the past to be the future.
Which might help explain our current problems but I'm not sure this 'site is aimed at political discussion.
Kimosabe wrote:Guys. While not wanting to interfere with free flowing debate, I would like to clarify that my intention in posting as I did, was to encourage discussion of the Green party's (and presumably the Police too?) proposition, to treat every motorist as being guilty of an offense, regardless of the cause or evidence, while also stating that a mystical pot of compensation be administered to the detriment of justice, should a cyclist or pedestrian be involved in an accident involving a vehicle. No mention of cyclist re-education, training, insurance etc etc, just a one-sided attack on motorists. I also ride a bike around town, so i'm not the one being one-sided about this.
WhoseGeneration wrote:What went through my mind was, ooh, there's a way to get some money.
Me, a pedestrian, town centre, slow moving traffic. I just have to amble out into the path of a vehicle, "bounce" off the ns wing and fall down screaming. It'll traumatise me such that I just won't be able to go into town again.
No doubt some lawyers will assist me in getting my "compo".
Unintended consequences.
fungus wrote:WhoseGeneration wrote:What went through my mind was, ooh, there's a way to get some money.
Me, a pedestrian, town centre, slow moving traffic. I just have to amble out into the path of a vehicle, "bounce" off the ns wing and fall down screaming. It'll traumatise me such that I just won't be able to go into town again.
No doubt some lawyers will assist me in getting my "compo".
Unintended consequences.
+1
MGF wrote:I can't see reversing the burden of proof when the standard is the balance of probabilities having a significant effect on the chances of being found at fault. This isn't likely to have the effect its supporters appear to think it will have.
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests