The proposals include a ban on the use of CCTV for parking enforcement, whether there should be statutory 'grace' periods, whether adjudicators should be able to have discretionary powers and clearer guidance when adjudicators can allow costs.
The DfT invites your views on current local authority parking strategies and on options they are considering to change the balance of how parking is enforced. The consultation ends on 14th February 2014.
No problem with that in principle, nor with any law which promotes equality of choice or opportunity for the individual.
The problem lies with laws which enforce things such as 'positive discrimination' which aim to help one group or groups in society with the resulting disadvantage of others. When true equality and freedom are distorted in this way, meritocracy becomes a sham and society becomes a shambles.
Nature prefers evolution; when a revolution occurs, the result is usually catastrophic. Which is why those with hidden agendas know they have a better chance of success if they work slowly and quietly to achieve their goals over a long period of time. The revolutionaries have become evolutionists.
But those who quietly and stealthily pursue the revolutionary agenda of social engineering are rarely interested in achieving a true egalitarian society, even though that may be their proclaimed goal.
A man gets 14 years in prison for sliding his girlfriend the “abortion pill.†Obviously he committed some kind of offence.
Although both of them were biologically responsible for the pregnancy, she wanted a child and he didn't. He shouldn't have relied on her to take the precautions.
But if she took this pill on her own, it is a woman’s right to choose. He gives it to her without telling her, it’s murder. Same foetus, same life terminated. Only in the modern west, folks.
Read what he did - he deceived her and killed the baby.
News you might not have heard
Posted: 16 Feb 2014, 00:00
by Gullscorer
Scott Brehaut wrote:Errr, have you read the article??
Read what he did - he deceived her and killed the baby.
I know; I'm not saying he didn't, and I'm not saying he shouldn't have been punished. The point I was trying to make is that if a woman deceives a man in order to get pregnant and then decides to kill the baby, it's an abortion, or infanticide at worst, and she gets away with minimal punishment or none at all, whereas if the man deceives the woman to abort the same baby (which is his baby as much as hers) he normally gets charged with murder, and so there appear to be double standards at play here, regardless of the morality of what he did or the moral judgements to be made regarding abortion itself (and I generally take a pro-life anti-abortion position in such matters, unless there are special reasons requiring an abortion).
