Drug Tests

[BroomJockey]

Why does it matter that I live in Canada? I was commenting on a story from the U.S.

It mattered that I misread your comment as "Many small towns here would no longer be able to afford a force of their own. Precedence would have been a major concern."

Thus, intimating that you had small police forces around in small areas, which confused the snot out of me The fact that you're Canadian has nothing to do with your ability to comment on a US story.

[Boozy]

I thought you were in Canada. Do many small towns in Ontario have their own police? I thought they just had the RCMP and the OPP, and then major metropolitan centres had a police department.

Why does it matter that I live in Canada? I was commenting on a story from the U.S.

But to answer your question: Most small towns in Ontario now use the OPP. Although even just ten years ago my small home town had their own force.

[BroomJockey]

Many small towns would no longer be able to afford a force of their own.

I thought you were in Canada. Do many small towns in Ontario have their own police? I thought they just had the RCMP and the OPP, and then major metropolitan centres had a police department.

[Boozy]

First, actually, not making the police legally responsible for your safety does make some sense. It means you can't sue them for every time something happens to you and they aren't able to stop it..

Exactly. If these women won their case, it would mean police forces would need to carry massive amounts of liability insurance. Many small towns would no longer be able to afford a force of their own. Precedence would have been a major concern here.

[Slytovhand]

First, actually, not making the police legally responsible for your safety does make some sense. It means you can't sue them for every time something happens to you and they aren't able to stop it.. there would have to be some limits imposed in general (ie, what if the police are racing to save you, and they are smashed head on in an accident?? Does that mean they should be sued for not getting to you in time?). But... to not respond without good reason seems stupid! Besides, as has been said, they aren't psychic (yet).



Pedersen...

The most the company should do is act on the reasonable suspicion: Send the employee home, and follow disciplinary action as detailed in their employee handbook. Yes, this can lead right up to termination. I'm okay with that.

So... a company should be able to discipline and terminate an employee based on suspicion alone? Odd, I really didn't think you'd condone that! (after all, you have argued that they shouldn't be allowed to gather the evidence that would normally be required, and they certainly don't have the right to enter your home...


Getting paid $10/hr for only 8 hours work, but actually being under their control for all 24 hours, 7 days a week.. no thank you!!! Fortunately, over here, you're actually allowed (in some limited ways, at least) to express your dissatisfaction about your employers without copping any punishment for it.

[Rapscallion]

sorry our supreme court has said they have no obligation to do so.

*blink*

Wow.

Just a suggestion from this side of the pond. You might want to look at that decision with a view to reviewing it. Just a thought.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

Seems ridiculous to me that you pay taxes for police and don't make them work to defend people and their property.

Seems ridiculous to have a justice system that favours the wealthy.

Seems ridiculous to me as well, Raps. Our education system and health system favor the wealthy, also. Hell, everything here favors the wealthy, because any time people try to change things for the better, the upper tiers begin to cry "Socialism! Dirty Commies!!"

[BlaqueKatt]

Seems ridiculous to me that you pay taxes for police and don't make them work to defend people and their property.

sorry our supreme court has said they have no obligation to do so.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

Also this case

says pretty much the same thing

While the U.S. Supreme Court has held the Fifth Amendment forbids the state from depriving an individual of life, liberty or property without due process, Cox said the high court didn’t impose an obligation that the state ensure those interests “do not come to harm by other means.”

Cox wrote that the right denied under the Ninth Amendment was clearly enumerated by the plaintiff, but the amendment has never been held by the court to grant a right to “adequate police protection.”

[Flyndaran]

Seems ridiculous to me that you pay taxes for police and don't make them work to defend people and their property.

Seems ridiculous to have a justice system that favours the wealthy.

Rapscallion

I agree on the second point. I wish we had a loser pays law.

The first one, of course no one pays cops to protect people directly. Thier job is to arrest people after they have committed crimes. They aren't paid to be psychic or parents.

[Rapscallion]

That seems like a ridulous waste of police resources. Property damage should be settled in civil court. Only poor people get jailed for such things if ever.

Seems ridiculous to me that you pay taxes for police and don't make them work to defend people and their property.

Seems ridiculous to have a justice system that favours the wealthy.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

Vandalism. Destruction of property. Yeah, you'd get arrested.

That seems like a ridulous waste of police resources. Property damage should be settled in civil court. Only poor people get jailed for such things if ever.

[BroomJockey]

Getting into an argument with my neighbor and following it up by keying his car wouldn't get me arrested. It would be a nice case for, "Judge Judy" though.

Vandalism. Destruction of property. Yeah, you'd get arrested.

[crazylegs]

1I would consider telling a cop to go fuck himself with his partner's dick all while giving him the nazi salute antisocial behavior, but nevertheless protected free speech. Could he get arrested in England for that?
2Getting into an argument with my neighbor and following it up by keying his car wouldn't get me arrested. It would be a nice case for, "Judge Judy" though.
I'm sure that what a law says and how it is enforced are often quite different.

1
Yes, you could. It qualifies as an offence under the Public Order Act, where a person of reasonable firmness is, or could feel Harrased OR Alarmed OR distressed. It does not need to be the target that feels that however for the offence to be completed.

2
You would be arrested over here, keying the car would be criminal damage, which is an arrestable offence.

I think it would be awesome to live in a place where being a douchebag is illegal. Where just being rude and nasty can nab you a hefty fine or a night in jail.

9 times out of 10 it won't. The police are taught (and it's drummed into them) that the removal of a persons liberty must be the final act that you consider to resolve the situation. The majority of cases can be (as I did tonight) be solved by some very stiff wording which does the trick quite nicely. You do need to be more than rude to be arrested, I don't have the offence wording to hand but simply being rude won't land you in jail; even if the law is broken you're more likely to receive an £80 Penalty Notice for Disorder for the minor public order offences.

[Flyndaran]

Flyn, ever hear of the charges of disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, public disturbance? Those are all the same as the ASB you are complaining about.

Honestly, too many Americans see Britain as a fascist state by taking these things way out of context.

How often are people arrested for disturbing the peace that weren't violent as well? Maybe the laws are enforced differently there. But disturbing the peace is usually code for domestic dispute, or fall down drunk here.
I bet it's our definitions of antisocial behavior that differ.
I would consider telling a cop to go fuck himself with his partner's dick all while giving him the nazi salute antisocial behavior, but nevertheless protected free speech. Could he get arrested in England for that?
Getting into an argument with my neighbor and following it up by keying his car wouldn't get me arrested. It would be a nice case for, "Judge Judy" though.
I'm sure that what a law says and how it is enforced are often quite different.

[lordlundar]

Flyn, ever hear of the charges of disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, public disturbance? Those are all the same as the ASB you are complaining about.

Honestly, too many Americans see Britain as a fascist state by taking these things way out of context.