I don't think their is agreement on that. How would you react, for example, if a substitute teacher showed a pornographic film to fourth graders. How would you react if the film was "Frozen" instead?
I really don't know, but that seems to me to be radically different in a host of ways: It's directly aimed at the kids, they can't easily leave, the teacher has an implicit mandate from parents, pornography is made to exhibit sex rather than being a direct result of people wanting to have sex, I can't even fathom what the substitute bit should change, and I haven't seen Frozen, but from that godawful song they're playing everywhere, I think my ten-year-old self would have preferred re-reading the juicier bits from Illuminatus! and imagining Deep Throat:The Movie.
So if you are caught jay walking and they can't write a ticket because you don't have an ID then there is always Plan B - arrest you and take you in. My son saw a guy arrested and taken to jail for jaywalking.
You will have to explain more to me about how it's different. a kid won't get the distinction you've stated. Seeing sex is seeing sex.
I won't let them, no. Will I be shocked if my son's browser history includes bigtitties.com as a teen (or hell, even a preteen these days)? No. I'd prefer to take a moment as a teachable lesson rather than treat it as and same with graphic violence. As for "they can deal when they're older," I figure my kids will have ay least two or three transgendered classmates and they'll have openly gay classmates before middle school, so that ship has long sailed on that score.
You miss the point. If the cop saw that crime occur then he has very right to arrest them. He did not see any crime occur. checking someone's ID is not going to tell them if a crime occurred in the past that they did not witness. How about checking with the complainant and see if they are for real and would swear that they saw the crime occur before doing anything else. So many people here think false accusation is just wonderful. The woman was let go because no crime occurred which means the complainant was bearing false witness and a fucking liar. There is the crime. That is who should have been arrested. A coward can call the cops on anyone and remain anonymous and I don't think this is right. How did this serve the public good? I think that those who do false accusation should face the same penalty as those they are accusing.
Something they'd rather not have to deal with? Perhaps. "Vile and offensive"? Only to people with severe issues.
So you think it was impossible for the police to tell if a crime was committed without the woman's ID? Who she is has nothing to do with whether a crime was committed or not.
I watched nature shows growing up, I also grew up on a farm, .... I knew what made babies. I'm not saying i want a surprise talk with my 10 yr old, but they were in a car and it should be easily explainable/ lied about to the kiddies. And if it's only grown ups around and the couple isn't real fat and or ugly why are we annoyed. Live sex is fun to watch in that case.
^and that's what it ultimately boils down to--all about the PARENTS' discomfort, not anything that will fuck the kids' head up. Like when I first started growing breasts at eight. The doc I saw gave us a book that explained the changes and what I could expect my body to do. Being curious, I read it and my mom being of the "Thiunk of the children!!!!!" type took the book away because OH NOES, there were naked wymins bodies in it. Glad the doc mentioned in my hearing that I could expect a period in two years, so that didn't come as a complete surprise to me.
Really? It won't matter to a kid whether actual, real sex is happening in a car they pass and it might accidentally glance at it in passing and become curious, or whether a teacher tells them to spend the next 90 minutes watching this movie designed to make adults horny? You really think that having the mere act of penetration passing through your eyeballs is such an essential thing that all circumstance becomes irrelevant?
No they aren't. Providing your passport to a lawyer or banker, for instance, is the law here under the Proceeds of Crime Act. I don't see anyone shitting the bed over it.
This is getting ridiculous. Are you telling us that a banker in the UK has the right to walk up to any person in the street and demand their passport? Of course not. They demand it once you have voluntarily chosen to open an account with their bank. And I know that not because I have had even a passing glance at the law, but because we all know that pretty much everybody would indeed be "shitting their bed" if the former were true.
See, whether or not the law is good or bad, it's still the law. If people don't like it they should campaign against it. Not refuse to co-operate if the find themselves at the receiving end. Doing that only leaves one person at a disadvantage. Let's face it, this isn't a Rosa Parks situation where the law is obviously unjust. Just show the ID FFS. I don't see why people can't write to their relevant state or federal politician to complain if they want it raised at the appropriate level. But how many people actually do that? Very few I suspect.
Can people function in modern society without a bank account? No. So I don't agree with your notion that it is a voluntary act. Why is the passport asked for? As part of an effort to prevent crime. Why is the passport asked for as part of a police investigation? As part of an effort to prevent crime. I simply don't understand what your argument is. Asking for an ID does nobody any bloody harm, and if it assists in the process of crime prevention, how is that not a good thing? We're not talking police brutality here.
You choose your bank, you choose when to open your account and show your passport, and if you fail to do so, you go home without a bank account. The scenario we have here is someone else deciding they want to see your passport now, and if you fail to show it, you're arested. I know you're not seriously saying that you see no difference between those two things. And I'm not saying a cop shouldn't ask for identification if they're investigating a serious crime. But when it happens on the basis of an unproven suspicion concerning a victimless crime no longer in progress, and depends further on the idea that in a country without obligatory ID cards, a passport you've already been shown does not suffice as identification, I can see why a citizen would feel harassed.
I'm sure that you people thinking it's okay to not carry ID are aware that many drug dealers, jail escapees, career criminals in general, etc. don't carry an ID because they don't want authorities to know who or where they are. Most cops understand the difference between jogging on a beach and loitering near an ATM wearing dark glasses constantly watching their six.
You have to understand that some people have been raised with the belief that they have the right to NEVER be inconvienenced. Rule of law be damned. There was a time when it was considered common sense to show ID at the voting booth in order to protect the integrity of the voting process but now that's considered too inconvienent as well as racist. We are definetly living in some strange times.
It's far easier to remain ignorant of the laws and rights of the people so when something like this happens all the Enlisted Retards in the world can scream bloody murder to their hearts content.
Criminals do carry ID. The majority of the time. Why? Well I'm glad you asked..... #1 It makes no sense not to. They may need their ID to do a legitimate transaction. Yes, I know it's hard to believe, but criminals are not always committing a crime! #2 Not having ID could cause an arrest if contact is made with the police. Especially if one is driving. #3 Criminals are smart enough to know that ID means nothing. The authorities can find out your ID when they book your ass for not having ID. So what's the point? Between fingerprints, photos, and in a few years perfect facial recognition no one is going to worry over their ID. As the technology of facial recognition reaches a extremely high accuracy rate the police will be able to know who you are in the street when they make contact with you. Jail escapees are the only ones who don't have ID. Where do you come up with these silly ideas?
Since you are a fan of everyone carrying ID 24/7/365 then you must be in favor of microchiping everyone. That way no on has to ask for ID, all governments can track all their subjects all the time.
