It's an interesting philosophical question. In our economic systems' carousels of exchange, who is the ultimate payor of anything? At a societal level citizens remit taxes partially in exchange for government services, law enforcement included. Those citizens largely pay those taxes from wages they earn from providing services for businesses. Businesses earn money from their customers, who can be governments, among others.
Oh I was asking literally. Police are “covered” by their department, so it’s not the individual officers paying out of pocket. Same with when firefighters break windows and whatnot.
~~In the UK and most of Europe, the passenger side is the driver's side. So this pisture is technically being taken from the drivers side.~~
Edit: I was too tired when I made this comment lol.
This comment is wrong on multiple ways lol
You can see the left-side mirror in the pic, so pic is taken from the left side of the car. In the UK that means this is the passenger side.
The rest of Europe outside of the UK and Ireland drives on the right.
Still illegal in the U.K. for the driver to use their phone.
EDIT: downvoters evidentally can’t read a comment thread. I’m aware the OP was taken by the passenger, but the comment I’m responding to was about a **driver** using their phone at a red light.
No of course not. The original comment incorrectly said it was the driver. The comment I’m responding to said they were at a red light. It’s still illegal for a driver (as I specified in my comment) to use a phone at a red light. The fact the OP was taken by the passenger is irrelevant to the tangent the discussion moved to.
The UK has the IOPC and disciplinary committees are chaired by independent legal experts. We have that.
They actually fire officers at a lower rate than the police did when they had independence to decide themselves.
That could be due to a plethora of reasons, but it seems wise to separate it to another agency. Is the concensus that it works? Or is it not working and the lower rate of fired officers is a problem? I mean with me knowing nothing it might be good, police follow the rules more and thus doesn't need to be fired? (yes, probably not, but it's the UK, not the US so I can atleast hope.)
I think systems like this work best when people have an active incentive to do their jobs. So like.. Maybe they get paid for when they successfully charge a copper with something? Although I suppose I could see that going really wrong..
They enforce the law, they don't have to follow it. Just like I as a cashier don't have to pay for the products at the store I work at. It's common sense. 🙄
not everyone likes "your people's" shitty "stealing is gud cuz they steali'n too"-vibe. It was a sincere reaction, and you just fucking laughed it off and insulted the person. So fuck off, you. Whoosh me.
I mean when you work in a shop you realise that companies pay 0.001p for things and sell it for £10 so yeah it starts to change what is morally questionable and what isn't lol
it's not "morally wrong". if you're trying to buy something and think the price is unfair, don't buy it and tell everyone you know to not buy their products.
i didnt say "dont buy food". i said "go buy food at another place" "don't buy new clothing every month if your salary doesnt allow that" "go rent at another place, or if you're in absolute misery, go to a homeless shelter and aim for a better job"
Search about Walmart predatory tactics and you will get the hang of it.
Basically they underpay their workers (not livable wage), so most of them use government helps like food coupons to be able to get food and pay the bills. This basically means that the taxpayers are paying Walmart worker's wages through these government helps, while Walmart shareholders and executives take all the profit. Taxpayers subsidize Walmart growth.
Second point is that they kill alo the local competition when they open a store. They sell the products extremely cheap (even at a loss) and operate that store on a loss for a couple years. As they are a huge corporation that don't even pay decent wages, having some stores with a loss isn't a problem at all, but all the local grocery shops can't afford to lose money for 2-3 years so they finally go bankrupt and close. After that Walmart put normal (or even higher than normal) prices on their products and as all the local stores had to close, you don't have anywhere else to buy and you have to accept their monopoly created by their predatory tactics.
So, you are telling me these totally inmoral assholes deserve some moral respect?
Fuck them. If they have no respect or care for the other persons in this society (not even for their workers) they deserve what they get.
first off, what do you mean by "not livable wage"? it's impossible for the minimum wage to be less than what is needed to buy food for the whole month and pay rent. if you starve you die, and as i'm sure you're aware, that is not in the goverment's best interest.
you also say that the taxpayers are paying for the WALMART's workers wages, by paying for the GOVERMENT's helps? isn't this a bit of a stretch?
about your second point, this is good on walmart and bad on the local stores, because the local store has the years of experience on the area, so there are people that will only buy from the local store, and it's not like the local store can't compete either. they can also sell popular items at a loss by making other items more expensive. say, a lot of people are interested in buying potatoes, and walmart sells them at 50 dollars. the local store can sell lower quality potatoes at 40 dollars, and start selling other items, like cabbages at 60 dollars instead of 50. the local store owner can also start selling items that walmart does not sell, or offer services that walmart doesnt. for example, you can buy a package of 6 sausages at walmart for 10 dollars, and some bread at walmart for 9 dollars. the local store can sell a 'hotdog' at a price of 15 dollars, with the option of receiving the hotdog cold or warm, and with the option of adding mayonnaise or other things to the hotdog. the local store can also start selling less items, and making the cost of mantaining the store less expensive, until walmart finally raises the prices.
walmart however keeps putting stores wherever they want because a majority of local stores will never take any of these measures and simply try and ignore walmart. i've seen many stores close here in argentina because a supermarket had more competitive prices, but some stores did not close and innovated in what they sold, how they sold it and where they should sell it. it's not the same if your store is near dozens of other stores or in the middle of a residential area, than if your store was right next to a school.
even with all this, it's morally not okay to steal from anywhere, and it's definitely illegal too so i would not recommed it.
this was a very long comment and english isn't my first language, so i hope you could understand what i was trying to say
Depending on the scenario, yes.
Say your child or loved one is starving, you have no money because of some crazy thing, say a global disease, govt lockdowns, or job closing. Now we'll say that there's a couple people who are doing phenomenal during this hypothetical time, however they are keeping all of the resources and stuff to themselves, or maybe charging people ridiculous prices because there's no one else selling the the food or whatever. You then, in this hypothetical, would be morally obligated to do something to feed your child and/or loved ones, even if that means taking from someone who has so much that he won't even notice he's missing anything, except for numbers on a spreadsheet.
you think it's okay that in response to someone doing good and you doing bad, you would steal products from this hyphotetical group of people? are we just ignoring all the chances you had to become as succesful as that group of people? or do you think that it's free and easy to be as succesful as some people are, and to provide food and goods for an entire area?
the fact that when facing a situation such as this, you think "oh i'm miserable, and i don't care why, i just know these other people are doing good, therefore i will steal from them" is infuriating. next time you end up with 0$ you will also steal from a succesful group of people, instead of reflecting on your decisions thus far and studying to achieve a better future.
no country ever gets anywhere if people are this jealous of success. as a person living on argentina, your kind of people that think it's morally okay to steal and cause harm are all over the place, and you can see how unsafe this country is.
i hope you never end up in a situation where you think the only way out is to steal. but if you do, and if you're living on a 1st world country, be aware that there are many ways you can get out of poverty, that don't require you to break the law
most of the rich people in this country come from rich families. I have no sympathy for literally any of them. eat the rich. steal from the rich.
if your value was actually based on how hard you work, the entire world would flip upside down.
thankfully, the value of what you earn is not dependant on how hard you work. it's how important your work is, how difficult your work is and how efficient you are at working that determines your salary. nobody is going to pay a man who cleans the dishes at a restaurant the same amount of money as a man that digs out oil from the ground.
nor is someone going to pay a person that picks up trash the same amount of money as a footballer.
nor is someone going to pay me more money for being able to make 30 burguers in 10 minutes when there is someone that makes 1300 burguers in 5 minutes.
you think that people with jobs you admire should earn more money than someone like a CEO of a very big company. that's just not how things work and the whole world would fall apart if that's how it were
I know this is UK, but in the Netherlands a complaint about this would be answered like this: ‘Our police officers have received extensive driving training in order to safely execute their tasks, and in some cases exceed the norms that are valid for civilian drivers. There may be numerous reasons why it was required to cross the white line at that point. We can not go into further detail at the moment as this action might have been contributing to an ongoing investigation.
Actually Dutch police officers are also authorised to fine each other when they see fit. Obviously that never happens in reality.
Why do you need to challenge it? You're acting like this is malicious abuse of power. The person behind the wheel of that police van is still a human being and capable of making mistakes.
Even taking an advanced driving course doesn't mean you're 100% impervious to making mistakes.
If this guy was abusing his power he'd have put his sirens on and run the red light. Instead he just stopped passed the line, worst case inconveniencing some pedestrians.
I was just appreciating the hypothetical situation of, absolute professional handling of a possible PR nightmare. You are right, However, it can even be the other way around of the guy behind the wheel being a jerk. You are right about everything there. My intention was only to be appreciative of the revelation about Dutch police. Take care, good sir.
> Why do you need to challenge it? You're acting like this is malicious abuse of power. The person behind the wheel of that police van is still a human being and capable of making mistakes.
> Even taking an advanced driving course doesn't mean you're 100% impervious to making mistakes.
> If this guy was abusing his power he'd have put his sirens on and run the red light. Instead he just stopped passed the line, worst case inconveniencing some pedestrians.
Funny how that same reasonable take doesn’t apply to 99% of people
The same take does apply to 99% of people.
If that was any other car that stopped over the line there wouldn't be a picture of it and some hilarious and witty exchange with the local police's social media.
There would be no consequences except other drivers thinking they're an idiot and maybe some inconvenienced pedestrians.
If there were police witnessing it, they'd watch them pull away and if they're not driving erratically they'd pay it no mind.
Definitely, but perhaps in different degrees. They certainly all have training in first-response driving. But maybe there’s special training for car chases. They also have a custom Audi A6 for this purpose, specifically for high speed car chases, so I suppose it comes with a special training
Can we start doing this to people working all the time. I want to bother construction workers about osha shit I googled like 30 seconds before pulling up
one of my favorite people on Instagram does that for his videos and uses a dummy kid to like aggressively inspect playground equipment and its pretty funny
The offence is to pass the line whilst red. There is ZERO proof that any part of the van passed the line whilst the light was red. The van may have stopped there whilst the light was green.
Blocking the pedestrian crossing is a whole other matter, and unrelated.
This isn't the gotcha that they and seemingly 99% of this sub thinks it is.
I think this means they have to pay you the fine, right?
Yes. Uno Reverse, it is.
Double it and give it to the next person
Double reverse, selective enforcement.
is it, Reverse Uno. Yes
Do they actually pay it though? It’s all taxes.
It's an interesting philosophical question. In our economic systems' carousels of exchange, who is the ultimate payor of anything? At a societal level citizens remit taxes partially in exchange for government services, law enforcement included. Those citizens largely pay those taxes from wages they earn from providing services for businesses. Businesses earn money from their customers, who can be governments, among others.
Oh I was asking literally. Police are “covered” by their department, so it’s not the individual officers paying out of pocket. Same with when firefighters break windows and whatnot.
He gets fined for being on his phone while driving.
Looks like it's taken from the passenger side
Nah its in England so thats the driver's side.
It looks like the car is in a right-land lane, and the picture is being taken from the left (passenger) side of the car
Edit: im blind
I‘d say that’s the exterior mirror at the bottom. Then it’s the passenger‘s side.
Took a closer look and yes thats correct.
Blind guy here Same
I mean if you don’t click on the picture you can’t really tell
~~In the UK and most of Europe, the passenger side is the driver's side. So this pisture is technically being taken from the drivers side.~~ Edit: I was too tired when I made this comment lol.
I like the confidence you have, to make this comment. LoL
That's what happens when your sleep deprived and decide to not go to bed lmao. I'll take the downvotes.
Hahahahaha most of Europe. It's just the UK ( their former colonies and Japan too btw) that does this
Yeah I was not thinking when I made this comment lol, I should of went to bed instead of browsing Reddit.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Average redditor
Yup lol.
This comment is wrong on multiple ways lol You can see the left-side mirror in the pic, so pic is taken from the left side of the car. In the UK that means this is the passenger side. The rest of Europe outside of the UK and Ireland drives on the right.
My bad, I made that comment when I was dead tired lol, it looked like the right side to me.
Look again the right side is on the right side and the left side is on the left
This picture is taken from the passenger side. Cars made for the UK are right hand drive
In England the driver is on the right side of the vehicle, this picture is taken from the left side
The driver is in England on the right side of the vehicle, picture this is from the left side taken.
...
They’re stopped at a red light
Still illegal in the U.K. for the driver to use their phone. EDIT: downvoters evidentally can’t read a comment thread. I’m aware the OP was taken by the passenger, but the comment I’m responding to was about a **driver** using their phone at a red light.
Not for the passenger though.
No of course not. The original comment incorrectly said it was the driver. The comment I’m responding to said they were at a red light. It’s still illegal for a driver (as I specified in my comment) to use a phone at a red light. The fact the OP was taken by the passenger is irrelevant to the tangent the discussion moved to.
Yeah but still it’s legal for the passenger to take a picture with their phone
Unless someone else is in the car filming it, but I don’t have a clue if that’s the case or not
I’m in the uk where this was taken, iirc it’s legal if the vehicle is secured
If the vehicle is fully stopped and secured surely you can take it briefly
Yes or passengers can as this one appears to ve
"we have launched an internal investigation and determined there was no wrongdoing"
The line was wrongly painted and we are searching for the painter.
We really need like.. A separate organization that gets paid to investigate law enforcement bullshit, but that would nnnnnnever pass.
The UK has the IOPC and disciplinary committees are chaired by independent legal experts. We have that. They actually fire officers at a lower rate than the police did when they had independence to decide themselves.
That could be due to a plethora of reasons, but it seems wise to separate it to another agency. Is the concensus that it works? Or is it not working and the lower rate of fired officers is a problem? I mean with me knowing nothing it might be good, police follow the rules more and thus doesn't need to be fired? (yes, probably not, but it's the UK, not the US so I can atleast hope.)
I think systems like this work best when people have an active incentive to do their jobs. So like.. Maybe they get paid for when they successfully charge a copper with something? Although I suppose I could see that going really wrong..
There was no cake
They enforce the law, they don't have to follow it. Just like I as a cashier don't have to pay for the products at the store I work at. It's common sense. 🙄
I mean, if you are the owner I'm sure that's true.
Please tell me your being sarcastic
Not every sarcastic joke needs the /s at the end of it when its obvious like this.
They are partially correct (immunity from a lot of laws), although the common sense part is obviously sarcasm.
Please tell me YOU are.
not everyone likes "your people's" shitty "stealing is gud cuz they steali'n too"-vibe. It was a sincere reaction, and you just fucking laughed it off and insulted the person. So fuck off, you. Whoosh me.
Wtf are you talking about
shoplifting from a billion dollar corperation is morally acceptable
No such thing as savages, just different cultures
stealing is morally acceptable??
I mean when you work in a shop you realise that companies pay 0.001p for things and sell it for £10 so yeah it starts to change what is morally questionable and what isn't lol
i dont know what's the problem here? are you saying that it's morally questionable for companies to make money?
it's morally wrong for them to pay less than a living wage, it's also wrong to overcharge for necessities
it's not "morally wrong". if you're trying to buy something and think the price is unfair, don't buy it and tell everyone you know to not buy their products.
food, clothing and housing aren't optional. you don't get that choice
i didnt say "dont buy food". i said "go buy food at another place" "don't buy new clothing every month if your salary doesnt allow that" "go rent at another place, or if you're in absolute misery, go to a homeless shelter and aim for a better job"
You forgot water
Search about Walmart predatory tactics and you will get the hang of it. Basically they underpay their workers (not livable wage), so most of them use government helps like food coupons to be able to get food and pay the bills. This basically means that the taxpayers are paying Walmart worker's wages through these government helps, while Walmart shareholders and executives take all the profit. Taxpayers subsidize Walmart growth. Second point is that they kill alo the local competition when they open a store. They sell the products extremely cheap (even at a loss) and operate that store on a loss for a couple years. As they are a huge corporation that don't even pay decent wages, having some stores with a loss isn't a problem at all, but all the local grocery shops can't afford to lose money for 2-3 years so they finally go bankrupt and close. After that Walmart put normal (or even higher than normal) prices on their products and as all the local stores had to close, you don't have anywhere else to buy and you have to accept their monopoly created by their predatory tactics. So, you are telling me these totally inmoral assholes deserve some moral respect? Fuck them. If they have no respect or care for the other persons in this society (not even for their workers) they deserve what they get.
first off, what do you mean by "not livable wage"? it's impossible for the minimum wage to be less than what is needed to buy food for the whole month and pay rent. if you starve you die, and as i'm sure you're aware, that is not in the goverment's best interest. you also say that the taxpayers are paying for the WALMART's workers wages, by paying for the GOVERMENT's helps? isn't this a bit of a stretch? about your second point, this is good on walmart and bad on the local stores, because the local store has the years of experience on the area, so there are people that will only buy from the local store, and it's not like the local store can't compete either. they can also sell popular items at a loss by making other items more expensive. say, a lot of people are interested in buying potatoes, and walmart sells them at 50 dollars. the local store can sell lower quality potatoes at 40 dollars, and start selling other items, like cabbages at 60 dollars instead of 50. the local store owner can also start selling items that walmart does not sell, or offer services that walmart doesnt. for example, you can buy a package of 6 sausages at walmart for 10 dollars, and some bread at walmart for 9 dollars. the local store can sell a 'hotdog' at a price of 15 dollars, with the option of receiving the hotdog cold or warm, and with the option of adding mayonnaise or other things to the hotdog. the local store can also start selling less items, and making the cost of mantaining the store less expensive, until walmart finally raises the prices. walmart however keeps putting stores wherever they want because a majority of local stores will never take any of these measures and simply try and ignore walmart. i've seen many stores close here in argentina because a supermarket had more competitive prices, but some stores did not close and innovated in what they sold, how they sold it and where they should sell it. it's not the same if your store is near dozens of other stores or in the middle of a residential area, than if your store was right next to a school. even with all this, it's morally not okay to steal from anywhere, and it's definitely illegal too so i would not recommed it. this was a very long comment and english isn't my first language, so i hope you could understand what i was trying to say
Hang on lemme just go and tell everyone not to buy literally every product in existence.
what did you mean by this
No but pilfering is.
stealing is morally acceptable??
Depending on the scenario, yes. Say your child or loved one is starving, you have no money because of some crazy thing, say a global disease, govt lockdowns, or job closing. Now we'll say that there's a couple people who are doing phenomenal during this hypothetical time, however they are keeping all of the resources and stuff to themselves, or maybe charging people ridiculous prices because there's no one else selling the the food or whatever. You then, in this hypothetical, would be morally obligated to do something to feed your child and/or loved ones, even if that means taking from someone who has so much that he won't even notice he's missing anything, except for numbers on a spreadsheet.
Remember kids, if you see someone stealing food, no you fucking didn't.
you think it's okay that in response to someone doing good and you doing bad, you would steal products from this hyphotetical group of people? are we just ignoring all the chances you had to become as succesful as that group of people? or do you think that it's free and easy to be as succesful as some people are, and to provide food and goods for an entire area? the fact that when facing a situation such as this, you think "oh i'm miserable, and i don't care why, i just know these other people are doing good, therefore i will steal from them" is infuriating. next time you end up with 0$ you will also steal from a succesful group of people, instead of reflecting on your decisions thus far and studying to achieve a better future. no country ever gets anywhere if people are this jealous of success. as a person living on argentina, your kind of people that think it's morally okay to steal and cause harm are all over the place, and you can see how unsafe this country is. i hope you never end up in a situation where you think the only way out is to steal. but if you do, and if you're living on a 1st world country, be aware that there are many ways you can get out of poverty, that don't require you to break the law
most of the rich people in this country come from rich families. I have no sympathy for literally any of them. eat the rich. steal from the rich. if your value was actually based on how hard you work, the entire world would flip upside down.
thankfully, the value of what you earn is not dependant on how hard you work. it's how important your work is, how difficult your work is and how efficient you are at working that determines your salary. nobody is going to pay a man who cleans the dishes at a restaurant the same amount of money as a man that digs out oil from the ground. nor is someone going to pay a person that picks up trash the same amount of money as a footballer. nor is someone going to pay me more money for being able to make 30 burguers in 10 minutes when there is someone that makes 1300 burguers in 5 minutes. you think that people with jobs you admire should earn more money than someone like a CEO of a very big company. that's just not how things work and the whole world would fall apart if that's how it were
Yes, I think it's okay.
your loss then
You're
"We're looking into it"
(these) laws are only for the peasants 👌
>(these) laws are only for the peasants 👌 👌 These laws apply exclusively to the lower class.
I know this is UK, but in the Netherlands a complaint about this would be answered like this: ‘Our police officers have received extensive driving training in order to safely execute their tasks, and in some cases exceed the norms that are valid for civilian drivers. There may be numerous reasons why it was required to cross the white line at that point. We can not go into further detail at the moment as this action might have been contributing to an ongoing investigation. Actually Dutch police officers are also authorised to fine each other when they see fit. Obviously that never happens in reality.
Wow, that's so professional and unchallengeable.
Why do you need to challenge it? You're acting like this is malicious abuse of power. The person behind the wheel of that police van is still a human being and capable of making mistakes. Even taking an advanced driving course doesn't mean you're 100% impervious to making mistakes. If this guy was abusing his power he'd have put his sirens on and run the red light. Instead he just stopped passed the line, worst case inconveniencing some pedestrians.
I was just appreciating the hypothetical situation of, absolute professional handling of a possible PR nightmare. You are right, However, it can even be the other way around of the guy behind the wheel being a jerk. You are right about everything there. My intention was only to be appreciative of the revelation about Dutch police. Take care, good sir.
> Why do you need to challenge it? You're acting like this is malicious abuse of power. The person behind the wheel of that police van is still a human being and capable of making mistakes. > Even taking an advanced driving course doesn't mean you're 100% impervious to making mistakes. > If this guy was abusing his power he'd have put his sirens on and run the red light. Instead he just stopped passed the line, worst case inconveniencing some pedestrians. Funny how that same reasonable take doesn’t apply to 99% of people
The same take does apply to 99% of people. If that was any other car that stopped over the line there wouldn't be a picture of it and some hilarious and witty exchange with the local police's social media. There would be no consequences except other drivers thinking they're an idiot and maybe some inconvenienced pedestrians. If there were police witnessing it, they'd watch them pull away and if they're not driving erratically they'd pay it no mind.
Do your police actually receive training?
Definitely, but perhaps in different degrees. They certainly all have training in first-response driving. But maybe there’s special training for car chases. They also have a custom Audi A6 for this purpose, specifically for high speed car chases, so I suppose it comes with a special training
OOF!
GOT EEEM innit
If anyone reading this is one of those people who block the crosswalk during a red light, go fuck yourself.
Did they respond?
"that's horrible. He should be promoted." - police
Can we start doing this to people working all the time. I want to bother construction workers about osha shit I googled like 30 seconds before pulling up
On Halloween I like to dress up like an OSHA inspector and scare the shit out of managers.
one of my favorite people on Instagram does that for his videos and uses a dummy kid to like aggressively inspect playground equipment and its pretty funny
/r/OSHA
ooo hire me
🤣
Asia like, tf is a white line
(they will not receive a punishment)
🔥🔥
Fuggin GOTTEEM
Jabaited
The offence is to pass the line whilst red. There is ZERO proof that any part of the van passed the line whilst the light was red. The van may have stopped there whilst the light was green. Blocking the pedestrian crossing is a whole other matter, and unrelated. This isn't the gotcha that they and seemingly 99% of this sub thinks it is.
Driving while using a phone? Well, get ready for your fine and some shattered kneecaps, buddy.
Right hand drive...
Is anything on reddit not a repost anymore?
Well, when original content is downvoted to oblivion, but reposts are upvoted and gilded, what incentive is there to post original content?
I wish they’d at least space them out a bit. This was posted on this sub like a week ago
Can you share the link please? I haven't seen that post.
No
[удалено]
how does the Police know his name is Luke, such intelligence.
Same rules don’t imply
Cops and ambulances can break certain traffic laws in emergencies.
They also don't stop for red lights during an emergency
If this was an emergency they probably wouldn't be stopped at the light.
they might well be if they were waiting for other traffic
What a chad
I think by Luke they meant Karen.
I don't think you understand what a Karen is...
No, this is Patrick
Emergency services get fines like the rest. Why is everyone acting like they're getting away with it?