I see your point. Nevertheless, I think there is a danger of trying to control what is technically possible to control.

"It can currently contol us as much as it likes (pass new law, employ more police to enforce it etc). "

"It", the government in a democracy, are the citizen. So stricly speaking citizen control citizen. Laws are passed in the house of parliament, consisting of representatives elected by the public. My fear is not so much that the state controls citizen, but that citizen start to control citizen. The power of the police increases through technological possiblities. As a result, the power of other the government increases. Hence, a step toward a police state. Without getting too philosophical, I think that would ultimately be fatal.

sorry, what I meant was: the power of other government institutions decreases..

My apologies bazzab - I see the errors in my ways of backing up arguments with facts, when ad hominem arguments and misinterpretations are far more convincing.

Particularly, I should not care about what the government legislates for, as it will certainly not affect my life, which I spend dossing around and generally neither doing my research nor thinking long and hard about anything of importance.

I was just reading an article on the smoking ban. Apparently thousands are to be employed to enforce it. What do you guys think of this? I mean I am all for a smoking ban. After all I dont smoke and I hate leaving a pub smelling of the stuff. But they want to employ thousands to enforce it. Isnt that a little extreme? And an intrusion of privicy? But then how do you go about enforcing an issue with which half the people despise, and the rest think its a great idea, but are not that bothered about it (meaning in a fight the ones who despise it will obviously win). Leaving it up to the pub owners will probably just result it it being ignored (sort of happening in some places in Hong Kong). Surely there is a middle ground?

Maybe all cigs should come with a chip in them. If you light up in a pub, it sends a messege to the police who then send you a nice fine

Oh, and as to 'it' I know the govenment in a democracy is the people. However, in our democracy we have three parties that differ in policies very slightly. Once in office (esp if they have a large majority) they can pass laws etc almost in disreguard to what the people say. Of course the fear of an iquiry or the possibility of losing an election prevents this from happening (though one could argue Blair get through all that quite well).

Anyway, as an aside, I think our system is more like a republic. I think democracy is where we all get to vote on all issues (like the Greeks) rather than elect people who we then entrust to do what we want them to do. We are in effect saying you guys look like you will do what we want more so than the others, now we entrust you to go off and do it. I think we also to a certain extent entrust them to do what is best for us, as often we either dont know the full story or dont have time to look into everything.

Re the smoking ban, it was my understanding that existing council workers are simply to be trained to enforce it, with only a handful dedicated to the 'cause'. Landlords etc. are unlikely to ignore it if the system is to follow other counties - they will get fined more than the 'perpetrators'. Heard this info on 5Live whilst driving yesterday... could be wrong (it happens)

Yes, but should people who are in effect members of the public be trained to do such a thing? They are not the police. They are 'off duty', as in not at work. So why are they being trained to do this? Surely it will create problems. If im in my local and a policeman cautions me/fines me, fair enough. If an ordinary person (perhaps even a regular) comes over and gives me a fine, it would create an air of mistrust. Here is what the BBC said on the issue

"Ministers have given councils £29.5m to pay for staff, who will be able to give on-the-spot £50 fines to individuals and take court action against premises.

They will have the power to enter premises undercover, allowing them to sit among drinkers, and will even be able to photograph and film people. "


I wasnt suggesting that landlords would ignore it. I simply meant that if it wasnt insome way seriously enforced, many would let patrons smoke, for fear of losing custom.

OK it does sound heavy handed, but this may need to be the case while everyone gets used to the new rules. I'm not a smoker any more and welcome the new law, although it will be odd not to be allowed to have the odd cigarette with a drink while I'm out socialising - I'm pretty sure that unless individuals are overly balshy and defiant, then fines will only follow warnings that have been ignored.

Things may ease off once non-smoking in public places becomes the norm. After all, most people wouldn't dream of getting into a car and not putting a seat belt on these days - it's second nature, so it isn't monitored so closely any more. When seatbelt laws came in, I'm sure some were angry at their removal of personal choice, but we all know that it makes sense.

I think Richmonds point concerning artificial creation of an atmosphere of mistrust is very good.

"They will have the power to enter premises undercover, allowing them to sit among drinkers, and will even be able to photograph and film people. "

That is a step in the wrong direction, IMHO. It almost sounds like in the former DDR (East-Germany), where every citizen was spying on every neighbour etc.

Except they'll be getting paid to do it. Don't forget, ordinary citizens are already encouraged to 'grass' on their neighbours etc. Crimestoppers advertises the fact that you can report anonymously and the benefits agencies rely on informers to flag up fraudsters. Although I've never done so yet, I must admit that I would - if I knew that someone was working, not paying taxes and claiming from the welfare state you can bet I'd be ringing someone. Wouldn't you?

That is slightly different though. That is more like stealing. Of course if someone was 'stealing' off me I would report them. Though would I let them know I was doing it? After all these people will prob be walking right over to you. That will create a certain amount of resentment (though maybe it is better to know who is watching than to think everyone is). If someone was not wearing their seatbelt, or was smoking in a pub, as long as it wasnt affecting me or anyone else in anyway (eg blowing smoke into kids faces may get a response), I would probably just leave it alone.

To answer your question: no, I definitely would not.

As I said before, I don't think it's a step in the right direction to be nosy about your neighbour. If you hear children screaming, that's a different thing, but general "grassing", no way. That should not belong in a democracy!

It only creates an atmosphere of paranoia, ignorance and mistrust, where everybody assumes a pedophile or mass murderer around the corner. NOt very nice to live in such an atmosphere.

sorry to say this, but it fits well into the general atmosphere of this country. People don't greet each other on the street, people don't know the names of their neighbour, the government is the opposite of caring or paternal (thanks to Miss Thatcher), people have to wait months for life saving operations, and so on.

Now everybody will hate me but I seriously believe that a lot of things in this country are going horribly wrong!

Still I like living in this country, but a bit of would be good for this country

Forget British politeness: Otto, you're now talking crap. ENOUGH of the sweeping statements!

I not only know the names of my immediate neighbours but several up the road as well. We have been to each others houses, shared drinks and BBQs in summer and signed for each others post. In our village (more like a small town now actually), people DO say 'hello' to passers by and I think you'll find that people in immediate need of life-saving operations are seen quickly - you may however wait months for laser tatoo removal.

As for paranoia - there ARE child abusers within half a mile of where you are sitting right now. Talk about naive!