Barbara Castle dead!
Discussion
quote:
....I don't think so and we are still stuck with the 70mph limit! Lets hope 2 Jags follows her soon. No wonder why Monkey got elected in Hartlepoole!
James
Top man James, not harsh at all. This bitch goes down in history as the one who started the politically correct, anti man anti car, nanny state social responsibility shite. I for one am just having a celibratory drink to register her demise as a good thing, may she rot in hell. Just heard Tony Benn on the radio singing her praises. I used to think he was good as political trash go. The reality is that all this scum do is ban, discourage, prevent. This would be OK if they then had some solutions to the problems. Not the case, they just blow a bit of froth around the edges, then retire to the house of lords and live off me from then till the parasites die. Then the green media talk shite about them for a few hours, the end. Pathetic.
quote:
quote:
...The reality is that all this scum do is ban, discourage, prevent...
These people have to justify their existence to society somehow!
No loss felt here.
So the the fact that she introduced breathalysers (outcome: fewer drunk-drivers and much safer roads) and front seat safety belts (outcome: no more being thrown out of cars in accidents, lots of lives saved) is worth nothing?
Never mind the legal enshrining of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value which is one of the cornerstones of a modern civilised society -- also one of hers.
Try learning some histry.
quote:
quote:
So the the fact that she introduced breathalysers (outcome: fewer drunk-drivers and much safer roads) and front seat safety belts (outcome: no more being thrown out of cars in accidents, lots of lives saved) is worth nothing?
Never mind the legal enshrining of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value which is one of the cornerstones of a modern civilised society -- also one of hers.
Try learning some histry.
She actually introduced the MOT and the breathyliser, neither of which are particularly effective pieces of legislation. I am sure I have said this before but the breathyliser only serves to persecute the majority of reasonable people. It fails completely to prevent the drunk from climbing into his car and killing people because they still do it. The MOT is infrequent enough to be completely useless, at its worst it is a conduit for garages to commit fraud. At best it is a certificate of roadworthyness valid for no more than 18 hours.
The seat belt was made effective by the invention of the inertia reel belt. I have no idea who was responsible for this but it was not Barbra castle. Despite my lack of historical knowlege, I am aware that most good motor manufacturers fitted belts from about 1963 onward, yet the legislation came into force in 1965.
The reality is that motor manufacturers have made by far and away the greatest contribution to accident reduction. This of course will be denied by the political trash so they can hijack the result to give credance for their flawed legislation.
I would like very much to see where the equal pay act has been effective. More than 30 years later court cases abound.
Yes she was of course a member of the human race and her legacy is that of slipshod legislation, ill concieved by a third rate mind and badly constructed so as to be relatively un-enforcable. We would all be better off without that kind of performance from politicians, good riddance.
I'm very sorry to hear you say that people who drink and drive are "reasonable" people. IMO anyone who takes charge of a motor vehicle with any amount of alchol in their blood stream should, at the very least be ashamed of themselves, as their irresponsibility could lead to someone's death. IMO there should be a 0mg limit, and anyone found to be in excess of that limit should face a lenghty ban.(Bring on the arguments)I am however, in total agreement about the MOT tests, and as for seatbelts, as the risk is taken wholely by the person deciding to wear or not to wear the seatbelt, surely the decision should be for that person to make, and not for central govenment to decree.
>> Edited by simonelite501 on Sunday 5th May 20:42
>> Edited by simonelite501 on Sunday 5th May 20:42
I'm with you on that one, Simon.
Whatever the measures that were introduced during her stint as Labour Minister of Transport during the Wilson administration in the 1960s, I don't recall any subsequent Minister overturning them.
Personally, I think it's sad and unecessary for someone, even a politician like Barbara Castle who's political views and leanings were vastly different to my own, to be called things like 'scum' and 'rot in hell' on these forums.
Whatever the measures that were introduced during her stint as Labour Minister of Transport during the Wilson administration in the 1960s, I don't recall any subsequent Minister overturning them.
Personally, I think it's sad and unecessary for someone, even a politician like Barbara Castle who's political views and leanings were vastly different to my own, to be called things like 'scum' and 'rot in hell' on these forums.
Few subscribers to this site, myself included, agree with the 70 mph limit. When it was introduced Motor Sport published a petition against the limit. I spent a lot of time trying to get people to sign my individual copy. Many more people refused to sign than signed, their feeling was that the limit was a good thing, with the dynamic ability of the average car in those days perhaps they were right.
Politically astute BC was well tuned into that feeling.
The current joke in those days when everything fun seemed to be threatened was that she was going to Bancock for Christmas. Something to do with the gender of the Xmas turkey?
Love her or hate her she did what she felt was right and stuck to her beliefs, got to give her credit for that surely.
Politically astute BC was well tuned into that feeling.
The current joke in those days when everything fun seemed to be threatened was that she was going to Bancock for Christmas. Something to do with the gender of the Xmas turkey?
Love her or hate her she did what she felt was right and stuck to her beliefs, got to give her credit for that surely.
quote:
I'm very sorry to hear you say that people who drink and drive are "reasonable" people. IMO anyone who takes charge of a motor vehicle with any amount of alchol in their blood stream should, at the very least be ashamed of themselves, as their irresponsibility could lead to someone's death. IMO there should be a 0mg limit, and anyone found to be in excess of that limit should face a lenghty ban.(Bring on the arguments)I am however, in total agreement about the MOT tests, and as for seatbelts, as the risk is taken wholely by the person deciding to wear or not to wear the seatbelt, surely the decision should be for that person to make, and not for central govenment to decree.
>> Edited by simonelite501 on Sunday 5th May 20:42
So presumably by your own code of ethics you will never drive again?
quote:
She actually introduced the MOT and the breathyliser, neither of which are particularly effective pieces of legislation. I am sure I have said this before but the breathyliser only serves to persecute the majority of reasonable people. It fails completely to prevent the drunk from climbing into his car and killing people because they still do it. The MOT is infrequent enough to be completely useless, at its worst it is a conduit for garages to commit fraud. At best it is a certificate of roadworthyness valid for no more than 18 hours.
The seat belt was made effective by the invention of the inertia reel belt. I have no idea who was responsible for this but it was not Barbra castle. Despite my lack of historical knowlege, I am aware that most good motor manufacturers fitted belts from about 1963 onward, yet the legislation came into force in 1965.
The reality is that motor manufacturers have made by far and away the greatest contribution to accident reduction. This of course will be denied by the political trash so they can hijack the result to give credance for their flawed legislation.
I would like very much to see where the equal pay act has been effective. More than 30 years later court cases abound.
Breathalyser: I'm sure you don't really believe that the drink-driving law 'only serves to persecute the majority of reasonable people'. It's an amazingly effective bit of legislation. It's now socially unacceptable for people to drink and drive whereas in the 1960s, it wasn't. Most people, including PHers, would agree with that and that's a big shift in public attitude. Only a few refuse to abide by it -- these are people who are unlikely (sadly) to be swayed by marketing campaigns, only by jail sentences -- but broadly speaking this law has achieved its aim, IMHO.
MoT: The MoT may sometimes be ineffective, agreed, but it's a darn sight better than having no testing of older cars at all. Most cars get tested, most cars get defects that are found fixed. How often would you test cars instead -- and how much would that cost?
Seat belts: Motor manufacturers don't suddenly decide to spend extra money on building cars. That way, their competitors will make more money than them. The only time they will do so is if they're either foreced to by legislation or if they think it will help them sell more cars. They started putting seat belts in when they knew the law was about to change since then there was a level playing field: everyone had to do it. Same thing happened with catalytic converters.
Freedom of choice argument is a different issue but sometimes you have to make a judgement call: the benefit is worth the theoretical loss of freedom. It happens all the time in all areas and, in this case, it's probably the right call, IMHO.
Equal pay act: of course court cases abound. In fact you could argue that this shows the act is working because people feel confidence that the law is worth making use of. It's not a perfect law since you can't legislate for every individual case but only set broad parameters. What it has achieved is a shift in public attitudes such that most people agree with the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. In 1967, before the legislation, this was not the case --it's sometimes a good idea to recognise that things were not ever thus.
quote:
I'm with you on that one, Simon.
Whatever the measures that were introduced during her stint as Labour Minister of Transport during the Wilson administration in the 1960s, I don't recall any subsequent Minister overturning them.
Personally, I think it's sad and unecessary for someone, even a politician like Barbara Castle who's political views and leanings were vastly different to my own, to be called things like 'scum' and 'rot in hell' on these forums.
Almost all of her legislation has at some time been modified. The point I was making is that if after 30 years legislation is still frequently ignored or dodged, that together with the high cost and difficulty of enforcement renders it poor in my opinion. This situation of course is not limited to the Wilson government but to almost all of them. For example we have in the UK the health and safety at work act, which is an enabeling act of 37 sections, underpinned by regulations ACOP and COP's. This is overseen by an executive at great expense and then enforced by an inspectorate again at great expense. Switzerland has a very simple piece of legislation requiring a huge bond to be supported by insurance for every busines. The end result is the insurance companies act as advisors and police and the safetey record is better than ours, at almost no cost. The difference illustrates how effective well thought out, easily implemented legislation can be.
I have to confess to hating almost all politicians, dead or alive. I am not alone. My main reason for this attitude is that they consistantly lie, often for their own egotistical ends. As a group they should be the most altruistic of people, yet they are probably as far away from that ideal as any group of people on earth. Worse still they lie knowing they can fool a lot of people into believing their lies. I find that unforgivable.
Oh and Terminator, I print what I print because I believe it to be true, I have learned a great deal from this board. I hope that continues. If however you want to disagree with me then please do, I am not however "someone" I am Nonegreen and quotable and always happy to listen

Mikey T my proposition is that most people drank in moderation, prior to the breathyliser. Drunk in charge of a vehicle was always an offense. Thereasonable people who went out had couple of beers and drove home were effectively stopped from that when the breath test came in. The heavy boozer was never targetted. The result is that today heavy drinkers still drive around without commiting offense and continue to get away with. Social drinkers either walk or abstain. Who is that benefitting?
I can't argue about Swiss legislation, knowing nothing about it, I confess.
I'd only say that the answer re breathalyser is in your response: most people drink in moderation. Therefore if those people are prevented from drinking and driving (when we know that even a little booze slows reaction time significantly) then most drink-related accidents will be stopped. Nonegreen, I agree as as I said earlier that the heavy drinkers can only be stopped by other, less subtle methods.
I'd only say that the answer re breathalyser is in your response: most people drink in moderation. Therefore if those people are prevented from drinking and driving (when we know that even a little booze slows reaction time significantly) then most drink-related accidents will be stopped. Nonegreen, I agree as as I said earlier that the heavy drinkers can only be stopped by other, less subtle methods.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff