Army of wardens to patrol Southampton streets (From Daily Echo)

Is there a reason Hampshire is so desperately avoiding doing the obvious thing of getting a larger police force?

Stormtroopers? don't make me laugh! Waste of public money more like, why can't these funds go towards putting real police officers on the streets rather than uniformed civilians with no more powers than writing a parking ticket!

This is nothing to do with the Police. Firstly this is a Southampton City Council idea and nothing to do with Hants Police. These are not 'Traffic Wardens'. TW's were part of the Police but Councils took over responsibility for parking and for many years have been known as Parking Attendants. In many areas including the New Forest the Parking Attendants have been reclassified as Civil Enforcement Officers---note the word CIVIL--ie Police no longer have the responsibility for dealing with these matters. Councils were happy to take on these powers from the Police as they saw them as Revenue earners. That is the real issue here--raising money for the Council. I repeat--this is nothing to do with the Police but due to deregulation by Govt of some old Police powers which it was felt could be dealt with by less trained people. The Police can then concentrate on more serious crime without having to deal with issues such as dropped litter and dog mess on pavements. You need to ask just what jobs you really want the Police to deal with--because they to need to set priorities

Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

The powers mentioned on the face of it sound OK, it's the other controlling revenue making rules that could easily turn this in to an even greater fascist state than it is now.
Will we be fined for watering our flowers in a hose pipe ban, walking on the cracks in the pavement, smiling at people in the wrong way. More controlling revenue making statutes (read up the definition of a statute).

"crack down and fine litter louts and dog foulers and to seize booze from underage drinkers"

I am for the above but 'traffic wardens' being given these powers is just silly. Giving more power to traffic wardens who can't be flexible at the best of times will be a mistake.

Clamp down on litter, dog fouling and anti social behaviour yes but at least use people who can use the power constructively and fairly. Employ more community support officers or better still more police officers. Using traffic wardens is not a good idea.

If a service is needed we will have to pay for it. If its a case of using traffic wardens to save money then we all know what you get if you pay peanuts.

stmarysmush wrote:
Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

A losar is you! Signed, Mike Godwin

stmarysmush wrote:
Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

You mean the Gestapo. Infact Heinich Himmler said himself that they were there to ensure that everybody did as they were told-or pay the price. This sounds very similar. We will be filling in those D-11's before you know it!

OMG It's happening already. Darth Vadar has taken over Eastleigh!

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote: Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

A losar is you! Signed, Mike Godwin

mike godwin ???? Leader of the Nazi Trafic Wardens ? Lost me there.
Anyway power crazed Wasps are not the answer. These new powers will corrupt them. Are they gonna take an oath to uphold the law ? Can we take their word against ours in court ? Where will it all end who is right ? who is wrong ? who will decide ?

StEmmosfire wrote:

stmarysmush wrote: Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

You mean the Gestapo. Infact Heinich Himmler said himself that they were there to ensure that everybody did as they were told-or pay the price. This sounds very similar. We will be filling in those D-11's before you know it!

The Echo has deliberately used a sensational headline to get responses like this. It knows that Traffic Wardens no longer exists and uses the term to just encourage hate. Similary the use of the word Stormtroopers is irresponsible and unnecessary

One would suspect that some sub on the newsdesk dreamt up the word Stormtroopers and since when have 55 civilians constituted an army ?
Can you really see some spineless wimp taking away alcohol from some boozed up yob in the street ?

Perhaps it would be more productive for the Council to discover exactly what the police are doing with their time ?

Boris Remmington wrote:
One would suspect that some sub on the newsdesk dreamt up the word Stormtroopers and since when have 55 civilians constituted an army ? Can you really see some spineless wimp taking away alcohol from some boozed up yob in the street ? Perhaps it would be more productive for the Council to discover exactly what the police are doing with their time ?

The reality is that this is 55 people spread over a Citythe size of Soton--probably split into 2 shifts. There will be very little difference. The areas currently patrolled by the Parking Attendants will remain the most patrolled primarily because the Council will consider those areas to produce most revenue. Do you really think a very poorly paid Parking Attendant is really going to put themselves at personal risk to issue a ticket to a thug--no--what will they do--ring the Police for help

Dont "traffic wardens" or whatever take a photo of offending parking issues for evidence etc.

Will they do that for dogs that foul the footpaths.

What will they take the photo of

exhibit A...the mess
exhibit B...a relieved dog
exhibit C..the owner.

Also where will they put the ticket on A B or C

I think it's a mistake to get rid of City Patrol (Read the actual Echo article) as these officers are Accredited (which I assume means they must have passed CRB checks and have no criminal record)

Surely the cost of accrediting (not to mention training) these 55 new officers to deal with non-civil issues such as confiscating alcohol, is going to be quite high?

Why not just give the existing City Patrol officers the powers to write parking tickets? They are already trained to deal with all the nastier stuff.

Personally, I can't see a traffic warden getting into conflict over dog fouling or Anti-Social Behaviour, I bet what they do presently is just call City Patrol!

Lone Ranger wrote:
Dont "traffic wardens" or whatever take a photo of offending parking issues for evidence etc. Will they do that for dogs that foul the footpaths. What will they take the photo of exhibit A...the mess exhibit B...a relieved dog exhibit C..the owner. Also where will they put the ticket on A B or C

Excellent idea. Also wont they need a scanner for the dog so they can identify him ? And this leads to every dog and dog owner being chipped so we can identify the correct owner to the correct dog. A complete owner, dog, registary like the magna-carter is needed or this will fail wont it ?

stmarysmush wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote: Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

A losar is you! Signed, Mike Godwin

mike godwin ???? Leader of the Nazi Trafic Wardens ? Lost me there.
Anyway power crazed Wasps are not the answer. These new powers will corrupt them. Are they gonna take an oath to uphold the law ? Can we take their word against ours in court ? Where will it all end who is right ? who is wrong ? who will decide ?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q
=mike+godwin

55 officers covering two shifts minus annual leave, sickness etc to cover the whole city?
to confiscate alcohol requires police accrediation and further training to cover the police and criminal evidence act. how much will this cost?
was it not the city patrol service in the Echo recently having spent a large sum of tax payers money on a new uniform?

I'm wondering what the "raffic wardens" in the headline are. And will they still b eworking until 11:00pm like the City Patrol officers do? And will they be patrolling Southampton's outlying estates?

These officers will not have the power to deal with anything. The people who foul, cause anti social behavior etc will just walk away as these officers wont be able to stop them.

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote: Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

A losar is you! Signed, Mike Godwin

mike godwin ???? Leader of the Nazi Trafic Wardens ? Lost me there. Anyway power crazed Wasps are not the answer. These new powers will corrupt them. Are they gonna take an oath to uphold the law ? Can we take their word against ours in court ? Where will it all end who is right ? who is wrong ? who will decide ?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q =mike+godwin

Not applicable.

Nice try though.

If people didn't live like vermin we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. I saw someone dropping litter today. I didn't tackle them as a gang turned up just after. I have too many commitments to risk my life over a dropped ice lolly.

Whatever happened to the initiative to stop cyclists riding their bikes on footpaths? How many were prosectued? How much longer will pedestrians have to put up with the selfish anticts of the cycling nazis? And don't tell me they ride on the footpath beacue it is too dangerous to ride on the road. Riding on the pavement is illegal and dangerous. Get the new stormstroopers to crack down on these illegal and selfish bike riders. Hurrrumph

55 officers + 55 stab jackets + 55 new uniforms + 55 wardens requiring further training (PACE, statements etc) + 55 new radios + 55 officers admin! some saving!! gonna get a little more expensive to park in town me thinks

Royston Smith need to be very careful, an idea like this will put him across that line, it dont matter if it's 1 or a 1,000,000 wardens, it is treason to have a private army off any sort, and a offender can still be hang or burn on a stake for breaking this law. check out the magna carter it's writen in there in one off the sub sections.
and if any one got any objection to this, then the best thing you can do is write a letter to the crown agents here in southampton (herbert house, canute road. (next to the old dock gate 2). give your objections and ask the crown to intervene, on the grounds it constitutes has a city private army.

wattstyrant1 wrote:
55 officers + 55 stab jackets + 55 new uniforms + 55 wardens requiring further training (PACE, statements etc) + 55 new radios + 55 officers admin! some saving!! gonna get a little more expensive to park in town me thinks

For everything else there's Barclay Card.

Southampton undoubtedly needs something, and per se I have no objection to reasonable enforcment against unsocial behaviour of all types. However, I have one particularly strong objection. There is little doubt that an organisation such as this will be target-driven, and it is my view that target driven organisations inevitably fail, as targets are limited to a relatively narrow range of targets, usually quantitive and not qualitative. As such they concentrate activity on the "easy hits" and fail miserably on anything outside their narrow view and anything that is "too difficult".

Additionally Local Authorities have consistently failed to use powers granted to them without using discretion and all too often go for that which increases income, or use the powers, such as covert surveillance, in an entirely disproportionate way.

And finally, the jobs are usually low paid and attract the least qualified or suitable and most badly trained. With no disrespect to the people employed, they lack tact, discretion and the ability to make reasonable judgements or anything which requires some sort of pragmaticism to the extent they hide behind powers rather than reason. i.e. a target driven jobsworth brigade.

It is not a prospect I relish!

southy wrote:
Royston Smith need to be very careful, an idea like this will put him across that line, it dont matter if it's 1 or a 1,000,000 wardens, it is treason to have a private army off any sort, and a offender can still be hang or burn on a stake for breaking this law. check out the magna carter it's writen in there in one off the sub sections.
and if any one got any objection to this, then the best thing you can do is write a letter to the crown agents here in southampton (herbert house, canute road. (next to the old dock gate 2). give your objections and ask the crown to intervene, on the grounds it constitutes has a city private army.

Off you go then, do you need the money for a stamp?

I wonder if Portswood will be targetted. This morning, there were 12 bullies on bikes on the pavements within a ten minute walk to the bus stop. One elderly lady looked terrified as the bully was three times her size in weight and height. The Civic Centre area is blighted by bullies on bikes on the pavement - will they be targetted?
Is this yet another ruse by the police so they do not have to do anything at all?

Achtung! SS Stormtroopers sind hier!! What is this? A totalitarian state??

This must be a joke. Yobs will laugh at "Stormtroopers" and treat them for the joke that they will become. If the problem is to be solved get something like the Italian carabinieri or the French CRS. That will certainly have a positive effect. Anything else is policing on the cheap and won't get the respect of the public or wrongdoers.

Blooming great! Traffic wardens are on power trips as it is without giving them these extra duties! Run em over I say!

Lone Ranger wrote:
Dont "traffic wardens" or whatever take a photo of offending parking issues for evidence etc. Will they do that for dogs that foul the footpaths. What will they take the photo of exhibit A...the mess exhibit B...a relieved dog exhibit C..the owner. Also where will they put the ticket on A B or C

Exhibit C: Dog feasting on wasp

Then it will be the real police officer's job to sort out the label on remains of wasp

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

Lone Ranger wrote: Dont "traffic wardens" or whatever take a photo of offending parking issues for evidence etc. Will they do that for dogs that foul the footpaths. What will they take the photo of exhibit A...the mess exhibit B...a relieved dog exhibit C..the owner. Also where will they put the ticket on A B or C

Exhibit C: Dog feasting on wasp Then it will be the real police officer's job to sort out the label on remains of wasp

Sorry typo error, that should be exhibt D,

How do you check on these push-bike bullies ? Will they stop and give all there correct name and addresses like good little boys. Most know the law and tell the police to go take a hike let alone some special wardens. Come on get in the real world nothing will happen this is just some tory chat trying to look good in the ECHO. He has no clue how the real world works hes just some upper class twit with a little power.

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote: Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

A losar is you! Signed, Mike Godwin

mike godwin ???? Leader of the Nazi Trafic Wardens ? Lost me there. Anyway power crazed Wasps are not the answer. These new powers will corrupt them. Are they gonna take an oath to uphold the law ? Can we take their word against ours in court ? Where will it all end who is right ? who is wrong ? who will decide ?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q =mike+godwin

Not applicable.

Nice try though.

Exactly applicable. Almost the quintissential violation, in fact

southy wrote:
Royston Smith need to be very careful, an idea like this will put him across that line, it dont matter if it's 1 or a 1,000,000 wardens, it is treason to have a private army off any sort, and a offender can still be hang or burn on a stake for breaking this law. check out the magna carter it's writen in there in one off the sub sections.
and if any one got any objection to this, then the best thing you can do is write a letter to the crown agents here in southampton (herbert house, canute road. (next to the old dock gate 2). give your objections and ask the crown to intervene, on the grounds it constitutes has a city private army.

Complete and utter rubbish. The death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998. Yes it was, look it up. Hanging? Gone. Burnt at the stake? What are you on about? This isn't the middle ages, man! That would fall under "cruel and unusual" even if we hadn't abolished the death penalty for treason. Which we have. Please, look into it before refuting with some typical nonsense.

Magna Carta? Don't make me laugh. You think that's the utter foundation for our law? What does the Magna Carta have to say about credit card fraud? Speeding violations? Hi-jacking an aircraft? Get a grip, man!

Jim Smyth wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote: Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

A losar is you! Signed, Mike Godwin

mike godwin ???? Leader of the Nazi Trafic Wardens ? Lost me there. Anyway power crazed Wasps are not the answer. These new powers will corrupt them. Are they gonna take an oath to uphold the law ? Can we take their word against ours in court ? Where will it all end who is right ? who is wrong ? who will decide ?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q =mike+godwin

Not applicable. Nice try though.

Exactly applicable. Almost the quintissential violation, in fact

Nope,

afraid not, not in this case, in fact I would go as far as saying you were to quick to judge the ruling, and how this person used it.

Nice try though.

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote: Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

A losar is you! Signed, Mike Godwin

mike godwin ???? Leader of the Nazi Trafic Wardens ? Lost me there. Anyway power crazed Wasps are not the answer. These new powers will corrupt them. Are they gonna take an oath to uphold the law ? Can we take their word against ours in court ? Where will it all end who is right ? who is wrong ? who will decide ?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q =mike+godwin

Not applicable. Nice try though.

Exactly applicable. Almost the quintissential violation, in fact

Nope,

afraid not, not in this case, in fact I would go as far as saying you were to quick to judge the ruling, and how this person used it.

Nice try though.

Cool story, bro, but you're going to have to explain why Godwin's Law isn't applicable here. Simply saying "it's not applicable" won't wash. No matter how many times you try it

How long before Southy unveils some secret law that only he knows about, that says you can still be hanged for treason in this country, then refuses to back it up with any research at all, instead simply citing "look into it its there if you want to look it up" as if that proved him right? I'll eat my hat if he doesn't

Jim...without re-searching everything on wikipedia as you are............wasnt the magna-carter a list of everything? So me saying a list of dog owners and dogs so future prosecutions wwill be valid is quite a good thing to point out i believe. How else do you prove the offence ? maybe DNA listinf will help in this case.

Jim Smyth wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote: Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

A losar is you! Signed, Mike Godwin

mike godwin ???? Leader of the Nazi Trafic Wardens ? Lost me there. Anyway power crazed Wasps are not the answer. These new powers will corrupt them. Are they gonna take an oath to uphold the law ? Can we take their word against ours in court ? Where will it all end who is right ? who is wrong ? who will decide ?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q =mike+godwin

Not applicable. Nice try though.

Exactly applicable. Almost the quintissential violation, in fact

Nope, afraid not, not in this case, in fact I would go as far as saying you were to quick to judge the ruling, and how this person used it. Nice try though.

Cool story, bro, but you're going to have to explain why Godwin's Law isn't applicable here. Simply saying "it's not applicable" won't wash. No matter how many times you try it

Well I think I said it once.

1. Too quick to judge the ruling.

2. The poster did not use it as an insult.

3. There are *arguably* comparisons here.

Although an extreme comment to make, there was some intellect behind what was stated by the poster.

But I'm sure you will disagree, as you were the one that called the ruling and in most cases this person will not back down.

stmarysmush wrote:
Jim...without re-searching everything on wikipedia as you are............wasnt the magna-carter a list of everything? So me saying a list of dog owners and dogs so future prosecutions wwill be valid is quite a good thing to point out i believe. How else do you prove the offence ? maybe DNA listinf will help in this case.

Well, first off, it's the Magna Carta. Secondly, I don't just use Wikipedia. Thirdly, the Magna Carta is irrelevant here. Fact is, treason in the UK is no longer punishable by death

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote: Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

A losar is you! Signed, Mike Godwin

mike godwin ???? Leader of the Nazi Trafic Wardens ? Lost me there. Anyway power crazed Wasps are not the answer. These new powers will corrupt them. Are they gonna take an oath to uphold the law ? Can we take their word against ours in court ? Where will it all end who is right ? who is wrong ? who will decide ?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q =mike+godwin

Not applicable. Nice try though.

Exactly applicable. Almost the quintissential violation, in fact

Nope, afraid not, not in this case, in fact I would go as far as saying you were to quick to judge the ruling, and how this person used it. Nice try though.

Cool story, bro, but you're going to have to explain why Godwin's Law isn't applicable here. Simply saying "it's not applicable" won't wash. No matter how many times you try it

Well I think I said it once.

1. Too quick to judge the ruling.

2. The poster did not use it as an insult.

3. There are *arguably* comparisons here.

Although an extreme comment to make, there was some intellect behind what was stated by the poster.

But I'm sure you will disagree, as you were the one that called the ruling and in most cases this person will not back down.

You re-iterated it.

1) Quantify "too quick". The comparison with Nazis was made. How long does one have to wait before the comparison becomes enough of a comparison?

2) Godwins Law says nothing about it only being applicable to insults. The poster compared to Nazism. His intent was rhetorical, that's all that matters.

3). No exceptions. There usually are, "arguably", comparisons. That's why the law has to be stoically adhered to.

I'm not questioning the intellect of stmarysmush. Merely calling Godwins Law on him. Being wrong isn't the sole preserve of the stupid!

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:
Royston Smith need to be very careful, an idea like this will put him across that line, it dont matter if it's 1 or a 1,000,000 wardens, it is treason to have a private army off any sort, and a offender can still be hang or burn on a stake for breaking this law. check out the magna carter it's writen in there in one off the sub sections.
and if any one got any objection to this, then the best thing you can do is write a letter to the crown agents here in southampton (herbert house, canute road. (next to the old dock gate 2). give your objections and ask the crown to intervene, on the grounds it constitutes has a city private army.

Complete and utter rubbish. The death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998. Yes it was, look it up. Hanging? Gone. Burnt at the stake? What are you on about? This isn't the middle ages, man! That would fall under "cruel and unusual" even if we hadn't abolished the death penalty for treason. Which we have. Please, look into it before refuting with some typical nonsense.

Magna Carta? Don't make me laugh. You think that's the utter foundation for our law? What does the Magna Carta have to say about credit card fraud? Speeding violations? Hi-jacking an aircraft? Get a grip, man!

take time and read the 500 pages off the magna carter, and not just the page that was signed, there,s apart in there, thats states these laws writen down can not be change or altered in any way, the magna cater can over rule any law thats been writen after wards, its a law for the people done by the crown and signed by the lords and crown.
only some of death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998, some still remain. and what your saying is the same thing that was said in 1600, but the magna carter was used to take a kings head off, and it was also used again in 1689, when Parliament used the magna carter to depose off king james III, the magna carter is the the english constitution, and any one has the right to challenge any law that came after this, if it breaks the magna carter, so credit card fraud? Speeding violations? Hi-jacking an aircraf are extra laws and they dont break the magna carter.

southy wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:
Royston Smith need to be very careful, an idea like this will put him across that line, it dont matter if it's 1 or a 1,000,000 wardens, it is treason to have a private army off any sort, and a offender can still be hang or burn on a stake for breaking this law. check out the magna carter it's writen in there in one off the sub sections.
and if any one got any objection to this, then the best thing you can do is write a letter to the crown agents here in southampton (herbert house, canute road. (next to the old dock gate 2). give your objections and ask the crown to intervene, on the grounds it constitutes has a city private army.

Complete and utter rubbish. The death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998. Yes it was, look it up. Hanging? Gone. Burnt at the stake? What are you on about? This isn't the middle ages, man! That would fall under "cruel and unusual" even if we hadn't abolished the death penalty for treason. Which we have. Please, look into it before refuting with some typical nonsense.

Magna Carta? Don't make me laugh. You think that's the utter foundation for our law? What does the Magna Carta have to say about credit card fraud? Speeding violations? Hi-jacking an aircraft? Get a grip, man!

take time and read the 500 pages off the magna carter, and not just the page that was signed, there,s apart in there, thats states these laws writen down can not be change or altered in any way, the magna cater can over rule any law thats been writen after wards, its a law for the people done by the crown and signed by the lords and crown.
only some of death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998, some still remain. and what your saying is the same thing that was said in 1600, but the magna carter was used to take a kings head off, and it was also used again in 1689, when Parliament used the magna carter to depose off king james III, the magna carter is the the english constitution, and any one has the right to challenge any law that came after this, if it breaks the magna carter, so credit card fraud? Speeding violations? Hi-jacking an aircraf are extra laws and they dont break the magna carter.

I win!

Jim Smyth wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote: Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

A losar is you! Signed, Mike Godwin

mike godwin ???? Leader of the Nazi Trafic Wardens ? Lost me there. Anyway power crazed Wasps are not the answer. These new powers will corrupt them. Are they gonna take an oath to uphold the law ? Can we take their word against ours in court ? Where will it all end who is right ? who is wrong ? who will decide ?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q =mike+godwin

Not applicable. Nice try though.

Exactly applicable. Almost the quintissential violation, in fact

Nope, afraid not, not in this case, in fact I would go as far as saying you were to quick to judge the ruling, and how this person used it. Nice try though.

Cool story, bro, but you're going to have to explain why Godwin's Law isn't applicable here. Simply saying "it's not applicable" won't wash. No matter how many times you try it

Well I think I said it once. 1. Too quick to judge the ruling. 2. The poster did not use it as an insult. 3. There are *arguably* comparisons here. Although an extreme comment to make, there was some intellect behind what was stated by the poster. But I'm sure you will disagree, as you were the one that called the ruling and in most cases this person will not back down.

You re-iterated it. 1) Quantify "too quick". The comparison with Nazis was made. How long does one have to wait before the comparison becomes enough of a comparison? 2) Godwins Law says nothing about it only being applicable to insults. The poster compared to Nazism. His intent was rhetorical, that's all that matters. 3). No exceptions. There usually are, "arguably", comparisons. That's why the law has to be stoically adhered to. I'm not questioning the intellect of stmarysmush. Merely calling Godwins Law on him. Being wrong isn't the sole preserve of the stupid!

After a long drawn out discussion (Like this one)the likely hood that someone will make a comparison with the Nazi's etc will increase (A bit like that 6 degrees of separation Kevin Bacon game)usually being used as an insult to the other poster and therefore Godwins Law.

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

stmarysmush wrote: Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

A losar is you! Signed, Mike Godwin

mike godwin ???? Leader of the Nazi Trafic Wardens ? Lost me there. Anyway power crazed Wasps are not the answer. These new powers will corrupt them. Are they gonna take an oath to uphold the law ? Can we take their word against ours in court ? Where will it all end who is right ? who is wrong ? who will decide ?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q =mike+godwin

Not applicable. Nice try though.

Exactly applicable. Almost the quintissential violation, in fact

Nope, afraid not, not in this case, in fact I would go as far as saying you were to quick to judge the ruling, and how this person used it. Nice try though.

Cool story, bro, but you're going to have to explain why Godwin's Law isn't applicable here. Simply saying "it's not applicable" won't wash. No matter how many times you try it

Well I think I said it once. 1. Too quick to judge the ruling. 2. The poster did not use it as an insult. 3. There are *arguably* comparisons here. Although an extreme comment to make, there was some intellect behind what was stated by the poster. But I'm sure you will disagree, as you were the one that called the ruling and in most cases this person will not back down.

You re-iterated it. 1) Quantify "too quick". The comparison with Nazis was made. How long does one have to wait before the comparison becomes enough of a comparison? 2) Godwins Law says nothing about it only being applicable to insults. The poster compared to Nazism. His intent was rhetorical, that's all that matters. 3). No exceptions. There usually are, "arguably", comparisons. That's why the law has to be stoically adhered to. I'm not questioning the intellect of stmarysmush. Merely calling Godwins Law on him. Being wrong isn't the sole preserve of the stupid!

After a long drawn out discussion (Like this one)the likely hood that someone will make a comparison with the Nazi's etc will increase (A bit like that 6 degrees of separation Kevin Bacon game)usually being used as an insult to the other poster and therefore Godwins Law.

Where did you read that? The law says nothing about insults. Not even in the Magners Carter version, which is over 9000 pages long apparently.

Can you still be disembowelled and your entire family set on fire for violating Godwins Law?

BTW, Southy, saying "these laws can't be repealled" isn't good enough. That's basically like "double thumpsies, no returns".

NO U

sorry hi-jacking air craft is covered by the magna carter in a funny about way, its covered under piracy.

southy wrote:
sorry hi-jacking air craft is covered by the magna carter in a funny about way, its covered under piracy.

*headdesk*

Go on then. Bring about a private prosecution against Rosyton Smith. Push for him to be burnt at the stake. I'd love to see how you get on.

Jim Smyth wrote:
BTW, Southy, saying "these laws can't be repealled" isn't good enough. That's basically like "double thumpsies, no returns".

NO U

first off all you got to under stand why the magna carter came about, its a law that was enforce on the crown, but king john, scibers was to clever for the lords, and it was written down in such a way that it included every person in the country from then and for ever, and you right it can not be repealled, or self it would off been done so back in henry VIII time, every time there's a new crown he/she has to agree to up hold the maga carter. before being crowned.

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:
sorry hi-jacking air craft is covered by the magna carter in a funny about way, its covered under piracy.

*headdesk*

Go on then. Bring about a private prosecution against Rosyton Smith. Push for him to be burnt at the stake. I'd love to see how you get on.

na the worse they do to him is put him in the tower, any way i all ready told how you go about it, ( a letter to the local crown agents ).

southy wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:
BTW, Southy, saying "these laws can't be repealled" isn't good enough. That's basically like "double thumpsies, no returns".

NO U

first off all you got to under stand why the magna carter came about, its a law that was enforce on the crown, but king john, scibers was to clever for the lords, and it was written down in such a way that it included every person in the country from then and for ever, and you right it can not be repealled, or self it would off been done so back in henry VIII time, every time there's a new crown he/she has to agree to up hold the maga carter. before being crowned.

First of all you got to understand that you're not the only person in the world to have heard of the Magna Carta. Pretending otherwise doesn't have the effect you think it does, y'know. You don't ACTUALLY appear to be more educated.

Please, do some research. Not only is a good amount of the Magna Carta ambiguous when translated into English, it also contains some ludicrous notions that we can't possibly adhere to these days. Example: it states that women are to be ignored if they claim to have witnessed the murder of anyone other than their husband (Clause 54). How would this have affected, say, the trial of Peter Sutcliffe? Another clause would have prevented the trial of Jeffrey Archer. Hmmm. But he did stand trial, didn't he? Also, according to the Magna Carta, if you borrow money from a Jew, then die, the debt is null and void. Awesome, enlightened stuff, eh. It also offers no protection whatsoever for foreigners living in England, ergo, it cannot possibly be treated as an irrefutable basis for modern law.

Go on. Carry on quoting the relevance of a document that is singularly anti-semitic, mysogynistic, classist and xenophobic. Rule Britannia!

southy wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:
sorry hi-jacking air craft is covered by the magna carter in a funny about way, its covered under piracy.

*headdesk*

Go on then. Bring about a private prosecution against Rosyton Smith. Push for him to be burnt at the stake. I'd love to see how you get on.

na the worse they do to him is put him in the tower, any way i all ready told how you go about it, ( a letter to the local crown agents ).

I'm more interested in seeing you bring about a prosecution for treason, based on nothing more than a mis-interpetation of the first sentence of some copy in a local newspaper. (Clue: the word "army" is the Echo's word, not Smith's. Good luck with that)

I'm afraid that this is the sort of people who get into power if most of the electorate can't be bothered to vote.

How many more stupid ideas are we going to be subjected to before the current council leadership is thrown out.

A traffic warden is a traffic warden, a policeman is a policeman.

A stormtrooper was something from the dark days in European history.

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:
BTW, Southy, saying "these laws can't be repealled" isn't good enough. That's basically like "double thumpsies, no returns".

NO U

first off all you got to under stand why the magna carter came about, its a law that was enforce on the crown, but king john, scibers was to clever for the lords, and it was written down in such a way that it included every person in the country from then and for ever, and you right it can not be repealled, or self it would off been done so back in henry VIII time, every time there's a new crown he/she has to agree to up hold the maga carter. before being crowned.

First of all you got to understand that you're not the only person in the world to have heard of the Magna Carta. Pretending otherwise doesn't have the effect you think it does, y'know. You don't ACTUALLY appear to be more educated.

Please, do some research. Not only is a good amount of the Magna Carta ambiguous when translated into English, it also contains some ludicrous notions that we can't possibly adhere to these days. Example: it states that women are to be ignored if they claim to have witnessed the murder of anyone other than their husband (Clause 54). How would this have affected, say, the trial of Peter Sutcliffe? Another clause would have prevented the trial of Jeffrey Archer. Hmmm. But he did stand trial, didn't he? Also, according to the Magna Carta, if you borrow money from a Jew, then die, the debt is null and void. Awesome, enlightened stuff, eh. It also offers no protection whatsoever for foreigners living in England, ergo, it cannot possibly be treated as an irrefutable basis for modern law.

Go on. Carry on quoting the relevance of a document that is singularly anti-semitic, mysogynistic, classist and xenophobic. Rule Britannia!

no it says a wife can not bare witness for or against her husband. check with the usa constitution whitch is base on the magna carter, and this part is written in to the laws off some off the states in the use.
and when its been translated into English its not ambiguous or ludicrous, and weather if you like it or not modern law is base on it.

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:
sorry hi-jacking air craft is covered by the magna carter in a funny about way, its covered under piracy.

*headdesk*

Go on then. Bring about a private prosecution against Rosyton Smith. Push for him to be burnt at the stake. I'd love to see how you get on.

na the worse they do to him is put him in the tower, any way i all ready told how you go about it, ( a letter to the local crown agents ).

I'm more interested in seeing you bring about a prosecution for treason, based on nothing more than a mis-interpetation of the first sentence of some copy in a local newspaper. (Clue: the word "army" is the Echo's word, not Smith's. Good luck with that)

my part and every one else is to notify the crown agents, its then up to the crown appointed investigators to do there work.

southy wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:
BTW, Southy, saying "these laws can't be repealled" isn't good enough. That's basically like "double thumpsies, no returns".

NO U

first off all you got to under stand why the magna carter came about, its a law that was enforce on the crown, but king john, scibers was to clever for the lords, and it was written down in such a way that it included every person in the country from then and for ever, and you right it can not be repealled, or self it would off been done so back in henry VIII time, every time there's a new crown he/she has to agree to up hold the maga carter. before being crowned.

First of all you got to understand that you're not the only person in the world to have heard of the Magna Carta. Pretending otherwise doesn't have the effect you think it does, y'know. You don't ACTUALLY appear to be more educated.

Please, do some research. Not only is a good amount of the Magna Carta ambiguous when translated into English, it also contains some ludicrous notions that we can't possibly adhere to these days. Example: it states that women are to be ignored if they claim to have witnessed the murder of anyone other than their husband (Clause 54). How would this have affected, say, the trial of Peter Sutcliffe? Another clause would have prevented the trial of Jeffrey Archer. Hmmm. But he did stand trial, didn't he? Also, according to the Magna Carta, if you borrow money from a Jew, then die, the debt is null and void. Awesome, enlightened stuff, eh. It also offers no protection whatsoever for foreigners living in England, ergo, it cannot possibly be treated as an irrefutable basis for modern law.

Go on. Carry on quoting the relevance of a document that is singularly anti-semitic, mysogynistic, classist and xenophobic. Rule Britannia!

no it says a wife can not bare witness for or against her husband. check with the usa constitution whitch is base on the magna carter, and this part is written in to the laws off some off the states in the use.
and when its been translated into English its not ambiguous or ludicrous, and weather if you like it or not modern law is base on it.

Based on it, yes. Strictly adherent to it? No.

Also, you just proved my point about the ambiguity of the translations from Latin.

Your witness

southy wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:
sorry hi-jacking air craft is covered by the magna carter in a funny about way, its covered under piracy.

*headdesk*

Go on then. Bring about a private prosecution against Rosyton Smith. Push for him to be burnt at the stake. I'd love to see how you get on.

na the worse they do to him is put him in the tower, any way i all ready told how you go about it, ( a letter to the local crown agents ).

I'm more interested in seeing you bring about a prosecution for treason, based on nothing more than a mis-interpetation of the first sentence of some copy in a local newspaper. (Clue: the word "army" is the Echo's word, not Smith's. Good luck with that)

my part and every one else is to notify the crown agents, its then up to the crown appointed investigators to do there work.

But it won't happen. Ergo, since you feel he is liable for hanging, you should pursue the matter privately. You are entitled to do this

Read between the lines, though. He is not raising an army, as you have claimed. The Echo has used that term, very loosely, and in your bid to appear knowledgeable, you took it out of context, applied the Magna Carta to it in an equally lax way, and then proceeded to argue your flaw-riddled case rather than just say "oh yeh, of course"

As usual

be better to have 10 new coppers than 50 toy ones that no one will take any notice of

Complete tossers! How about giving us cheaper all-day parking in the city centre!!!

quote""Based on it, yes. Strictly adherent to it? No.
Also, you just proved my point about the ambiguity of the translations from Latin.
Your witness"" unquote

there 3 original magna carter, one in runnymede, one in winchester and the other is in the usa and they all say the same. theres no ambiguity of the translations from Latin. only if the person how translating it wants to bend it into there favour and what it really says. and 1215 latin is not to hard to translate for a translator for there is very little diffrence between that latin and latin off to day. just like english not a lot off difference between old english and modern english (apart from a few words changes and some new new words added)

sfc5018 wrote:

StEmmosfire wrote:

stmarysmush wrote: Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

You mean the Gestapo. Infact Heinich Himmler said himself that they were there to ensure that everybody did as they were told-or pay the price. This sounds very similar. We will be filling in those D-11's before you know it!

The Echo has deliberately used a sensational headline to get responses like this. It knows that Traffic Wardens no longer exists and uses the term to just encourage hate. Similary the use of the word Stormtroopers is irresponsible and unnecessary

Stormtroopers!!! Matt the Hack, is at it again.

Idiot.

Chakka Khan, Chakka Khan!

Jim Smyth, Soton says..Read between the lines, though. He is not raising an army, as you have claimed. The Echo has used that term, very loosely, and in your bid to appear knowledgeable, you took it out of context, applied the Magna Carta to it in an equally lax way, and then proceeded to argue your flaw-riddled case rather than just say "oh yeh, of course"
As usual

go and read the last part off what i first said.

southy wrote:
quote""Based on it, yes. Strictly adherent to it? No.
Also, you just proved my point about the ambiguity of the translations from Latin.
Your witness"" unquote

there 3 original magna carter, one in runnymede, one in winchester and the other is in the usa and they all say the same. theres no ambiguity of the translations from Latin. only if the person how translating it wants to bend it into there favour and what it really says. and 1215 latin is not to hard to translate for a translator for there is very little diffrence between that latin and latin off to day. just like english not a lot off difference between old english and modern english (apart from a few words changes and some new new words added)

TL;DR

TD.DR do that mean you finished trolling now.
or to lazy to read

Call them Supertroopers and add a little music to this severe thread drift

southy wrote:
TD.DR do that mean you finished trolling now.
or to lazy to read

I wouldn't bandy around any "too lazy" accusations when it comes to literacy, mate. Not that I'm picking holes in yours, mind you, just beware of the glass house phenomenon, eh

Chakka Khan, Chakka Khan


I FEEL FOR YOU

Chakka Khan, Chakka Khan

I was rappin' in my club the other night
When nothin' I said was comin' out right
The crowd got angry, and this one man
He was gonna throw a bottle
He was gonna chuck a can, chuck a can, chuck it, chuck it, chuck it,
chuck it

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:
TD.DR do that mean you finished trolling now.
or to lazy to read

I wouldn't bandy around any "too lazy" accusations when it comes to literacy, mate. Not that I'm picking holes in yours, mind you, just beware of the glass house phenomenon, eh

i know my english is bad, but i like every one else if you excel in one way then you fail in another.
got a copy off off the runnymede carter was thinking about putting it up on the web some where and see how people translate it, and see what happens make a god debate i think.

southy wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:
TD.DR do that mean you finished trolling now.
or to lazy to read

I wouldn't bandy around any "too lazy" accusations when it comes to literacy, mate. Not that I'm picking holes in yours, mind you, just beware of the glass house phenomenon, eh

i know my english is bad, but i like every one else if you excel in one way then you fail in another.
got a copy off off the runnymede carter was thinking about putting it up on the web some where and see how people translate it, and see what happens make a god debate i think.

And what is it you think you're excelling in here? Refusing to concede a point to someone else? You realise that for a debate to take place, you have to at least be receptive to other ideas, and also to use logic rather than silly tricks, right?

sfc5018 wrote:
This is nothing to do with the Police. Firstly this is a Southampton City Council idea and nothing to do with Hants Police. These are not 'Traffic Wardens'. TW's were part of the Police but Councils took over responsibility for parking and for many years have been known as Parking Attendants. In many areas including the New Forest the Parking Attendants have been reclassified as Civil Enforcement Officers---note the word CIVIL--ie Police no longer have the responsibility for dealing with these matters. Councils were happy to take on these powers from the Police as they saw them as Revenue earners. That is the real issue here--raising money for the Council. I repeat--this is nothing to do with the Police but due to deregulation by Govt of some old Police powers which it was felt could be dealt with by less trained people. The Police can then concentrate on more serious crime without having to deal with issues such as dropped litter and dog mess on pavements. You need to ask just what jobs you really want the Police to deal with--because they to need to set priorities

Not sure if you agree with this civil enforcement or not from your words. Police do need priorities and dog fouling is not one of them I would guess, but there needs to be someone out there doing the 'not so important' work that the police have relinquished. I presume you agree with this?

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:
TD.DR do that mean you finished trolling now.
or to lazy to read

I wouldn't bandy around any "too lazy" accusations when it comes to literacy, mate. Not that I'm picking holes in yours, mind you, just beware of the glass house phenomenon, eh

i know my english is bad, but i like every one else if you excel in one way then you fail in another.
got a copy off off the runnymede carter was thinking about putting it up on the web some where and see how people translate it, and see what happens make a god debate i think.

And what is it you think you're excelling in here? Refusing to concede a point to someone else? You realise that for a debate to take place, you have to at least be receptive to other ideas, and also to use logic rather than silly tricks, right?

Bloody hell , will you two give it a rest? !!

Forest Resident wrote:
Stormtroopers? don't make me laugh! Waste of public money more like, why can't these funds go towards putting real police officers on the streets rather than uniformed civilians with no more powers than writing a parking ticket!

More police officers totally agree with you on that point could not put it better myself. Will they be going out on pooh patrol? No! No way on this earth, so we are back to square one with no one doing the 'not so important' work that needs to be addressed because the public want it addressed.

KA wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:
TD.DR do that mean you finished trolling now.
or to lazy to read

I wouldn't bandy around any "too lazy" accusations when it comes to literacy, mate. Not that I'm picking holes in yours, mind you, just beware of the glass house phenomenon, eh

i know my english is bad, but i like every one else if you excel in one way then you fail in another.
got a copy off off the runnymede carter was thinking about putting it up on the web some where and see how people translate it, and see what happens make a god debate i think.

And what is it you think you're excelling in here? Refusing to concede a point to someone else? You realise that for a debate to take place, you have to at least be receptive to other ideas, and also to use logic rather than silly tricks, right?

Bloody hell , will you two give it a rest? !!

Lulz!

Lone Ranger wrote:
Dont "traffic wardens" or whatever take a photo of offending parking issues for evidence etc.

Will they do that for dogs that foul the footpaths.

What will they take the photo of

exhibit A...the mess
exhibit B...a relieved dog
exhibit C..the owner.

Also where will they put the ticket on A B or C

???
Without the owner there is no case to follow, the dog will be captured and taken to the pound and the mess left where it is if any.

If there is no mess or no dog there is no offence so you need all three of course. Clarificcation is a wonderful thing.

well its not my english thats for sure.
what got me interested in to the magna carter, was a dispute on fishing rights, a big land lord claiming rights where they did not have any in tidal waters, they had miss read the ending off a word or changed it. one ending means lowest and the other ending means highest tides, whitch comes round every 200 years, and its this level where crown property starts, any way cutting it short, it ended up the removal on the no fishing signs and anti fishing blades.
so i think the main point would be is how people would translate it and did they translate it right.

southy wrote:
well its not my english thats for sure.
what got me interested in to the magna carter, was a dispute on fishing rights, a big land lord claiming rights where they did not have any in tidal waters, they had miss read the ending off a word or changed it. one ending means lowest and the other ending means highest tides, whitch comes round every 200 years, and its this level where crown property starts, any way cutting it short, it ended up the removal on the no fishing signs and anti fishing blades.
so i think the main point would be is how people would translate it and did they translate it right.

LOL WUT?!

First you're claiming that the Magna Carta is absolute canon, and the utter foundation, irrefutably, irrepealably, forever, of our laws. Now you're talking about how different peope translate it, and questioning whether it was translated right? Self-contradictory five! WIN!

Ian24 wrote:
These officers will not have the power to deal with anything. The people who foul, cause anti social behavior etc will just walk away as these officers wont be able to stop them.

I have heard that actually these officers that is 'City Patrol officers' have made great strides against the ASB fromm CCTV and gained local knowledge of offenders and locations. When you consider that these officers have no personal protection equipment except a vest, you might give them more credit for the successes they have had out there against drunken jobs with parents who don't care or who don't know what their kids are up to. As a citizen I should be able to challenge such behaviour just like you the only difference is that these gys get a vest for a little protection and some extra legislation making it an offence to assault an accredited officer, but that only comes in to play when you have been assaulted. Not my cup of tea for a few pounds and I doubt the traffic guys will want it either.

The name 'Stormtroopers' has, as others have pointed out, connotations with the uniformed political thugs operated by the Nazi party, which they used to consolodate power once they acheived this at the ballot box.

I'm quite worried about the prospect of Royston having this sort of force at his disposal, as there are some other striking parralels. First, Tory Leader Alec Samuels reminds me of Hindenburg, appearing frail, aging and lower profile than his deputy, who seems to have usurped him. Secondly the tories in Southampton were previously a small party no one took seriously. maybe it's not just the BNP we need to worry about.

Tom Bargate wrote:
I'm wondering what the "raffic wardens" in the headline are. And will they still b eworking until 11:00pm like the City Patrol officers do? And will they be patrolling Southampton's outlying estates?

If the idea is to save money no way are they going to be out late. This means the streets will be back in charge of the kids with the police valiantly trying to attend every granny with broken windows every gang in drink and criminal damage and violence increased. Happy times ahead.

Seems most people don't actually know what a Stormtrooper is. Contrary to the paranoid warblings on this thread, the original German Stormtroopers were neither an invention of the Nazi party - being a product of WW1, before Nazism existed - nor were they a political instrument used in the civilian arena. They were military units trained and deployed to infiltrate ("storm": see?) enemy trenches in the battlefield. So Royston Smith uses the word slightly out of context, and the great unwashed of Southampton add 2 + 2 to make OMFGNAZIHELLBIGBROTH
EROMGOMG once more missing the point.

Repeat: the Stormtroopers you are all drawing ridiculous parallels with were not actually any sort of bully boy thug instrument of the Nazi party. They are not in any way synonymous with Nazism, totalitariansism or any other scary words you might vaguely worry about.

Jim Smyth wrote:
Seems most people don't actually know what a Stormtrooper is. Contrary to the paranoid warblings on this thread, the original German Stormtroopers were neither an invention of the Nazi party - being a product of WW1, before Nazism existed - nor were they a political instrument used in the civilian arena. They were military units trained and deployed to infiltrate ("storm": see?) enemy trenches in the battlefield. So Royston Smith uses the word slightly out of context, and the great unwashed of Southampton add 2 + 2 to make OMFGNAZIHELLBIGBROTH EROMGOMG once more missing the point. Repeat: the Stormtroopers you are all drawing ridiculous parallels with were not actually any sort of bully boy thug instrument of the Nazi party. They are not in any way synonymous with Nazism, totalitariansism or any other scary words you might vaguely worry about.

That is if Royston actually used that word at all if he did how on earth did he become fire marshall or water tap turn on person that he now is? If he combines the two roles we will have water cannon on the streets supplied by the fire service. EEEEK

The name 'Stormtroopers' has, as others have pointed out, connotations with the uniformed political thugs operated by the Nazi party, which they used to consolodate power once they acheived this at the ballot box.

Utter reactionary, ill-researched nonsense, I'm afraid. See above. They were no such thing. You've siezed on the wrong word.

I'm quite worried about the prospect of Royston having this sort of force at his disposal, as there are some other striking parralels.

Why? Do you drop litter a lot, whilst walking your food-poisoned dog and drinking underage?

First, Tory Leader Alec Samuels reminds me of Hindenburg, appearing frail, aging and lower profile than his deputy, who seems to have usurped him.

Would this be the same Hindenburg who openly opposed Hitler and Nazism? You know, the guy who was encouraged to run for presidency of Germany once more, being seen as the only candidate capable of defeating Hitler politically? Strange parallel to draw, don't you think? Actually the antithesis of that which you parallel. Interesting rhetorical device!

Secondly the tories in Southampton were previously a small party no one took seriously. maybe it's not just the BNP we need to worry about.

Quite. Never has been. All politicians succumb to corruption eventually

funguy not mushroom wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:
Seems most people don't actually know what a Stormtrooper is. Contrary to the paranoid warblings on this thread, the original German Stormtroopers were neither an invention of the Nazi party - being a product of WW1, before Nazism existed - nor were they a political instrument used in the civilian arena. They were military units trained and deployed to infiltrate ("storm": see?) enemy trenches in the battlefield. So Royston Smith uses the word slightly out of context, and the great unwashed of Southampton add 2 + 2 to make OMFGNAZIHELLBIGBROTH EROMGOMG once more missing the point. Repeat: the Stormtroopers you are all drawing ridiculous parallels with were not actually any sort of bully boy thug instrument of the Nazi party. They are not in any way synonymous with Nazism, totalitariansism or any other scary words you might vaguely worry about.

That is if Royston actually used that word at all if he did how on earth did he become fire marshall or water tap turn on person that he now is? If he combines the two roles we will have water cannon on the streets supplied by the fire service. EEEEK

Indeed. The story says these trumped-up milk monitors are dubbed "Stormtroopers" but it doesn't say by whom. Media manipulation needn't be particularly sophisticated in order to work, eh

Jim Smyth wrote:

The name 'Stormtroopers' has, as others have pointed out, connotations with the uniformed political thugs operated by the Nazi party, which they used to consolodate power once they acheived this at the ballot box.

Utter reactionary, ill-researched nonsense, I'm afraid. See above. They were no such thing. You've siezed on the wrong word.

I'm quite worried about the prospect of Royston having this sort of force at his disposal, as there are some other striking parralels.

Why? Do you drop litter a lot, whilst walking your food-poisoned dog and drinking underage?

First, Tory Leader Alec Samuels reminds me of Hindenburg, appearing frail, aging and lower profile than his deputy, who seems to have usurped him.

Would this be the same Hindenburg who openly opposed Hitler and Nazism? You know, the guy who was encouraged to run for presidency of Germany once more, being seen as the only candidate capable of defeating Hitler politically? Strange parallel to draw, don't you think? Actually the antithesis of that which you parallel. Interesting rhetorical device!

Secondly the tories in Southampton were previously a small party no one took seriously. maybe it's not just the BNP we need to worry about.

Quite. Never has been. All politicians succumb to corruption eventually

Jeez mate chilllll out will ya! lol

stmarysmush wrote:
Storm Troopers ?? Wasnt that how the NAZI party enforced there laws on CIVIL people. Seems a dangerous play on words here. Not very well thought out to say the least.

No. It wasn't. Check your history

KA wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

The name 'Stormtroopers' has, as others have pointed out, connotations with the uniformed political thugs operated by the Nazi party, which they used to consolodate power once they acheived this at the ballot box.

Utter reactionary, ill-researched nonsense, I'm afraid. See above. They were no such thing. You've siezed on the wrong word.

I'm quite worried about the prospect of Royston having this sort of force at his disposal, as there are some other striking parralels.

Why? Do you drop litter a lot, whilst walking your food-poisoned dog and drinking underage?

First, Tory Leader Alec Samuels reminds me of Hindenburg, appearing frail, aging and lower profile than his deputy, who seems to have usurped him.

Would this be the same Hindenburg who openly opposed Hitler and Nazism? You know, the guy who was encouraged to run for presidency of Germany once more, being seen as the only candidate capable of defeating Hitler politically? Strange parallel to draw, don't you think? Actually the antithesis of that which you parallel. Interesting rhetorical device!

Secondly the tories in Southampton were previously a small party no one took seriously. maybe it's not just the BNP we need to worry about.

Quite. Never has been. All politicians succumb to corruption eventually

Jeez mate chilllll out will ya! lol

Lol I couldn't be more chilled out if I tried! I just like pointing out glaring FAIL like that above. It's one step away from "Won't somebody think of the children!"

Honestly, some traffic wardens get the power to fine litter louts, and all of a sudden people act like Stalin just took up office!

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:
well its not my english thats for sure.
what got me interested in to the magna carter, was a dispute on fishing rights, a big land lord claiming rights where they did not have any in tidal waters, they had miss read the ending off a word or changed it. one ending means lowest and the other ending means highest tides, whitch comes round every 200 years, and its this level where crown property starts, any way cutting it short, it ended up the removal on the no fishing signs and anti fishing blades.
so i think the main point would be is how people would translate it and did they translate it right.

LOL WUT?!

First you're claiming that the Magna Carta is absolute canon, and the utter foundation, irrefutably, irrepealably, forever, of our laws. Now you're talking about how different peope translate it, and questioning whether it was translated right? Self-contradictory five! WIN!

yes the magna carter is absolute, but its all ways been open to abuse to change words so it,s in favour to a person or a group. even when you got the right translation then it will come under interruption off that law/s.

Well this is a nonsense.

Everyone I know complains about anti social behaviour and I have seen my neighbours given politicians doorknocking hell for not doing enough.

I have parking problems and I reckon one of the main offenders is also responsible for some of the dogs mess round here.

I'd much rather have someone from the council sort it out than me having the speak to them.

Also, I can't help but think that this board has people on here who simply hate the Tories.

I don't hate any party except the bnp and reckon either this people cannot bring themselves to accept someone else may have a good idea or they are being employed by our local Labour MPs.

southy wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

southy wrote:
well its not my english thats for sure.
what got me interested in to the magna carter, was a dispute on fishing rights, a big land lord claiming rights where they did not have any in tidal waters, they had miss read the ending off a word or changed it. one ending means lowest and the other ending means highest tides, whitch comes round every 200 years, and its this level where crown property starts, any way cutting it short, it ended up the removal on the no fishing signs and anti fishing blades.
so i think the main point would be is how people would translate it and did they translate it right.

LOL WUT?!

First you're claiming that the Magna Carta is absolute canon, and the utter foundation, irrefutably, irrepealably, forever, of our laws. Now you're talking about how different peope translate it, and questioning whether it was translated right? Self-contradictory five! WIN!

yes the magna carter is absolute, but its all ways been open to abuse to change words so it,s in favour to a person or a group. even when you got the right translation then it will come under interruption off that law/s.

It isn't absolute, then

Hitler had the same sort a thing before the start of world war 2, they were called ss and they ruled by fear and intimidation.
The name stormtroopers is the wrong name to use because the german stormtroopers were a very good fighting force, this is just another BIG BROTHER act.( what is this city coming to ???? )

yeh , i can really imagine these traffic wardens / stormtroopers walking around millbrook housing estate & seizing booze from the under age /teenagers , never gonna happen ! looks like the police will be turning up in riot gear when this happens, lol
as for dealing with litter bugs & dog fouling, well i can only say two things , WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH & WHAT A CROCK OF SH*T !

i cant even get a normal council warden to get my shed lock fixed after it was broken into 3 years ago.
back to the drawing board for these stupid councillors who dreamed this fantasy up.GOOD LUCK WITH THAT !

Does everybody have to take everything literally all the time? Nobody has said "the army of traffic warden++, modelled exactly after Stormtroopers" or anything. God knows how confused you lot must've been when you first saw "Trainspotting"

Tory deputy leader Royston Smith ?, £9.6m short fall ? wow i wonder where our moneys gone ? anyone got any ideas ?

password .. DUCK -MOAT . lol lol

wake up

One Labour MP locally spent £500 on a rug. Councillors are not MPs and don't have access that sort of expenses.

MrGMan wrote:
wake up

One Labour MP locally spent £500 on a rug. Councillors are not MPs and don't have access that sort of expenses.

You're in Southampton now, boy! MP, councillor, paediatrician, Stormtrooper, Big Brother, Hitler, it's all the same to these guys. Everyone that isn't a minimum-wage-earning "taxpayer" is automatically The Enemy, a crook, a swindler, corrupt, and to be utterly hated at every turn

MrGMan wrote:
wake up One Labour MP locally spent £500 on a rug. Councillors are not MPs and don't have access that sort of expenses.

RUG ? £500 ? i hope it's a flying carpet & that it cuts down on his travelling expenses ! lol


password : HOME-FLIP

wake up wrote:

MrGMan wrote:
wake up One Labour MP locally spent £500 on a rug. Councillors are not MPs and don't have access that sort of expenses.

RUG ? £500 ? i hope it's a flying carpet & that it cuts down on his travelling expenses ! lol


password : HOME-FLIP

LOL that'd be nice eh

security word: lame-joke

yes Jim Smyth it is absolute, well its writen down to be absolute, thats what your high court judges are about, they are your or part off the crown agents. judge mcdonald kick out a case back in the 70's because a land lord was claiming tidal rights, because the deeds did not have the crown seal on it, theres only 2 places in england with such a stamp and they are none transferable (sale the land and the tidal rights returns back to the crown automaticly, there use to be 3 back 25 years ago).
but if you looking at it this way, that no law is absolute then your probley right there because all laws are open to interruption.

Jim Smyth wrote:

KA wrote:

Jim Smyth wrote:

The name 'Stormtroopers' has, as others have pointed out, connotations with the uniformed political thugs operated by the Nazi party, which they used to consolodate power once they acheived this at the ballot box.

Utter reactionary, ill-researched nonsense, I'm afraid. See above. They were no such thing. You've siezed on the wrong word.

I'm quite worried about the prospect of Royston having this sort of force at his disposal, as there are some other striking parralels.

Why? Do you drop litter a lot, whilst walking your food-poisoned dog and drinking underage?

First, Tory Leader Alec Samuels reminds me of Hindenburg, appearing frail, aging and lower profile than his deputy, who seems to have usurped him.

Would this be the same Hindenburg who openly opposed Hitler and Nazism? You know, the guy who was encouraged to run for presidency of Germany once more, being seen as the only candidate capable of defeating Hitler politically? Strange parallel to draw, don't you think? Actually the antithesis of that which you parallel. Interesting rhetorical device!

Secondly the tories in Southampton were previously a small party no one took seriously. maybe it's not just the BNP we need to worry about.

Quite. Never has been. All politicians succumb to corruption eventually

Jeez mate chilllll out will ya! lol

Lol I couldn't be more chilled out if I tried! I just like pointing out glaring FAIL like that above. It's one step away from "Won't somebody think of the children!" Honestly, some traffic wardens get the power to fine litter louts, and all of a sudden people act like Stalin just took up office!

Jim

Let me answer your points

Firstly. Yes, the term stormtrooper originally referred to troops used by the german army at the tail end of WWI.

However, according to Wikipedia amongst other sources "The Sturmabteilung (help·info), abbreviated SA (German for "Storm detachment" or "Assault detachment" or "Assault section", usually translated as "stormtroop(er)s"), functioned as a paramilitary organization of the Nazi Party. It played a key role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s.

SA men were often called "brownshirts" for the colour of their uniforms; this distinguished them from the Schutzstaffel (SS), who wore black and brown uniforms (in comparison to Benito Mussolini's blackshirts). Brown-coloured shirts were chosen as the SA uniform because a large batch of them was cheaply available after World War I, having originally been ordered for German troops serving in Africa.

The SA was also the first Nazi paramilitary group to develop pseudo-military titles for bestowal upon its members. The SA ranks would be adopted by several other Nazi Party groups, chief among them the SS. The SA was very important to Adolf Hitler's rise to power, but was largely irrelevant after he took control of Germany in 1933; it was effectively superseded by the SS after the Night of the Long Knives."


Right now that's out of the way, I'd like correct another of your historical innacuracies.

hindenburg was the President, wheras Hitler was initially Chancellor (basically German equivalent of Prime Minister). Hitler actively worked to by-pass Hindenberg and on Hindenberg's death the two offices were combined into the post of Fuhrer.

Crucial to this strategy was an event in Potsdam in 1933 attended by both Hindenberg and Hitler. Again from Wikipedia:

"At the start of the Third Reich in 1933 there was a ceremonial handshake between President Paul von Hindenburg and the new Chancellor Adolf Hitler on 21 March 1933 in Potsdam's Garnisonkirche (Garrison Church). This symbolised a coalition of the military (Reichswehr) and Nazism."

If you want another source you can look at The Nazi Germany, sourcebook By Roderick Stackelber, Sally Anne Winkle. This can be viewed at http://books.google.
co.uk/books?id=zHbAb
bn_tpEC&pg=PA123&lpg
=PA123&dq=treaty+of+
potsdam+1933&source=
bl&ots=IkC1eUuu1J&si
g=UtlTqDZCnQqS9PhH84
54e-gjLFU&hl=en&ei=h
RlJSqrLEcfMjAeU_5nIA
w&sa=X&oi=book_resul
t&ct=result&resnum=5


Page 123 states that three days later the Reichstag passed new legislation removing the need for legislation to have Hindenberg's approval

And if oyu don't beleive that you can check out the account on the Potsdam Local Government Website http://www.potsdam.d
e/cms/beitrag/100009
45/33981/which says:

1933 - The 'Day of Potsdam'

"March 21, 1933 has become known as the 'Day of Potsdam' in German history. After the Reichstag in Berlin was burned down, a new location was sought for the inaugural celebrations of the newly-elected German Reichstag (parliament), and it was found in Potsdam.

In the Garrison Church, in which the Prussian kings Frederick William I and Frederick II were then buried, the German president Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler as the Reich's chancellor. The 'Day of Potsdam' is considered a symbol of the unholy alliance between National Socialism and Prussianism."

This new team of Super Officers will not include all City Patrol. The Council have forgotten to say that 9 will be losing their jobs!! When we had problems with youths, City Patrol were and still are invaluable in moving them on and resolving the problem. Why get rid of a good idea?

emsworth38 wrote:
This new team of Super Officers will not include all City Patrol. The Council have forgotten to say that 9 will be losing their jobs!! When we had problems with youths, City Patrol were and still are invaluable in moving them on and resolving the problem. Why get rid of a good idea?

Money.

Royston wants to be known as the man who kept council tax down. Particularly as he's standing as an MP in the general election.

He's also not very good at running a local Authourity.

All the Nazi parralels aside, CIty Patrol do seem a dedicated bunch who signed up for the jobs they do knowing what was involved, wheras traffic wardens probably don't even want to be doing more enforcement duties which has been foisted upon them.

As you say it's a shame to be losing a lot of expertise and the kind of knowledge and rapport in the community City Patrol has built up.

Blimey! Some teachers have far too much time on their hands!

On one of the hottest days of the year too.

Less is more.....

Is it not time to reduce the number of councillors. They obviously do not have enough to do. We need an elected mayor who reduces the number of councillors and reduces the council tax. Councillors are outdated and useless.

55 is more than 9, so where is the problem?

55 is more than 9, so where is the problem?

Seems a good idea to me. If you can't face the punishment don't commit the crime!