Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car occupant who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a breath test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered
before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in certain circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a conflict between being required to provide a specimen and the right to remain
silent.
Any thoughts?
On 2023-10-26, Peter W wrote:
Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car occupant >> who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a breath test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered
before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in certain
circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal
questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a conflict >> between being required to provide a specimen and the right to remain
silent.
Any thoughts?
The police can work the age out from the required driving licence
anyway.
Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car
occupant who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a
breath test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered
before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in certain circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a conflict between being required to provide a specimen and the right to remain
silent.
Any thoughts?
"Peter W" <not@for.mail> wrote in message news:kpv436F57daU1@mid.individual.net...
Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car
occupant who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a
breath test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered
before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in certain
circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal
questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a conflict >> between being required to provide a specimen and the right to remain
silent.
Any thoughts?
quote:
Road Traffic Act 1991
Information as to identity of driver etc.
For section 172 of the M1Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be substituted—
“172 Duty to give information as to identity of driver etc in certain circumstances.
(1)This section applies—
(a)to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—
unquote:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/section/21
Exceptions which don't include Section 4
Such that
quote:
Under s. 4(1) RTA 1988, it is an offence if a person drives or attempts
to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place whilst unfit
through drink or drugs.
unquote
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-drink-and-drug-driving
If you're accused of drink driving then you have no real alternative but
to co-operate
bb
On 26 Oct 2023 at 19:37:41 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Peter W" <not@for.mail> wrote in message
news:kpv436F57daU1@mid.individual.net...
Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car
occupant who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a
breath test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered
before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in certain >>> circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal
questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a conflict >>> between being required to provide a specimen and the right to remain
silent.
Any thoughts?
quote:
Road Traffic Act 1991
Information as to identity of driver etc.
For section 172 of the M1Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be substituted— >>
“172 Duty to give information as to identity of driver etc in certain
circumstances.
(1)This section applies—
(a)to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—
unquote:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/section/21
Exceptions which don't include Section 4
Such that
quote:
Under s. 4(1) RTA 1988, it is an offence if a person drives or attempts
to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place whilst unfit
through drink or drugs.
unquote
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-drink-and-drug-driving
If you're accused of drink driving then you have no real alternative but
to co-operate
bb
Does that apply when you are merely suspected of an offence? Does it apply when you are required to provide a specimen after an accident when there is no
particular evidence that you committed an offence? Does it apply when there is
no conclusive evidence that an offence has been committed at all? Does it apply when an offence is only suspected, not alleged? Does giving your identity necessarily entail giving your age?
I am not convinced that this section is relevant - it largely seems to apply when an offence is identified (with what degree of confidence?) but the identity of the driver is *not* known.
"Peter W" <not@for.mail> wrote in message news:kpv436F57daU1@mid.individual.net...
Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car
occupant who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a
breath test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered
before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in certain
circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal
questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a conflict >> between being required to provide a specimen and the right to remain
silent.
Any thoughts?
quote:
Road Traffic Act 1991
Information as to identity of driver etc.
For section 172 of the M1Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be substituted—
“172 Duty to give information as to identity of driver etc in certain circumstances.
(1)This section applies—
(a)to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—
unquote:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/section/21
Exceptions which don't include Section 4
Such that
quote:
Under s. 4(1) RTA 1988, it is an offence if a person drives or attempts
to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place whilst unfit
through drink or drugs.
unquote
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-drink-and-drug-driving
If you're accused of drink driving then you have no real alternative but
to co-operate
Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car
occupant who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a breath test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered
before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in certain circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a
conflict between being required to provide a specimen and the right to
remain silent.
Any thoughts?
On 26 Oct 2023 at 22:44:39 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Oct 2023 at 19:37:41 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Peter W" <not@for.mail> wrote in message
news:kpv436F57daU1@mid.individual.net...
Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car
occupant who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a
breath test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered >>>> before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in
certain
circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal
questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a
conflict
between being required to provide a specimen and the right to remain
silent.
Any thoughts?
quote:
Road Traffic Act 1991
Information as to identity of driver etc.
For section 172 of the M1Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be
substituted-
"172 Duty to give information as to identity of driver etc in certain
circumstances.
(1)This section applies-
(a)to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except-
unquote:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/section/21
Exceptions which don't include Section 4
Such that
quote:
Under s. 4(1) RTA 1988, it is an offence if a person drives or attempts
to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place whilst unfit
through drink or drugs.
unquote
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-drink-and-drug-driving >>>
If you're accused of drink driving then you have no real alternative but >>> to co-operate
bb
Does that apply when you are merely suspected of an offence? Does it
apply
when you are required to provide a specimen after an accident when there
is no
particular evidence that you committed an offence? Does it apply when
there is
no conclusive evidence that an offence has been committed at all? Does it
apply when an offence is only suspected, not alleged? Does giving your
identity necessarily entail giving your age?
I am not convinced that this section is relevant - it largely seems to
apply
when an offence is identified (with what degree of confidence?) but the
identity of the driver is *not* known.
That's ambiguous; I mean when the police do not know who was driving, not when
they've got a driver but don't know his name and age.
On 26/10/2023 19:37, billy bookcase wrote:
"Peter W" <not@for.mail> wrote in message
news:kpv436F57daU1@mid.individual.net...
Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car
occupant who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a
breath test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered
before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in certain >>> circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal
questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a
conflict
between being required to provide a specimen and the right to remain
silent.
Any thoughts?
quote:
Road Traffic Act 1991
Information as to identity of driver etc.
For section 172 of the M1Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be
substituted-
"172 Duty to give information as to identity of driver etc in certain
circumstances.
(1)This section applies-
(a)to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except-
unquote:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/section/21
Exceptions which don't include Section 4
Such that
quote:
Under s. 4(1) RTA 1988, it is an offence if a person drives or attempts
to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place whilst unfit
through drink or drugs.
unquote
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-drink-and-drug-driving
If you're accused of drink driving then you have no real alternative but
to co-operate
That section only requires the *identity* of the driver to be disclosed, nothing about any personal details of the driver, and only applies anyway
if a person is "accused" of an offence, not merely suspected.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 12:24:06 +0000, Peter W wrote:
Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car
occupant who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a breath
test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered
before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in certain
circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal
questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a
conflict between being required to provide a specimen and the right to
remain silent.
Any thoughts?
Bottom line is driving is a privilege, not a right.
In order to gain that
privilege you agree to some T&Cs, and allowing yourself to be stopped and identified by a policeman is one of them.
The default of walking on a public highway should not be subject to such T&Cs. (No matter what plod thinks.). That *is* a right.
It's that simple,
On 27/10/2023 09:56 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
People frequently say that.
It is not correct.
On 27/10/2023 09:56 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 12:24:06 +0000, Peter W wrote:
Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car
occupant who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a breath >>> test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered
before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in certain >>> circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal
questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a
conflict between being required to provide a specimen and the right to
remain silent.
Any thoughts?
Bottom line is driving is a privilege, not a right.
People frequently say that.
It is not correct.
I have a right to drive any roadworthy and adequately insured motor
vehicle which my licence covers and which I either own or have permission (from the owner) to drive.
No official may prevent me from doing so (except in the rather unlikely circumstance of my being temporarily incapacitated by alcohol, and either legal or illegal drugs). I am one of tens of millions with exactly the
same rights. That right is not a privilege and may not be peremptorily suspended.
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:kq1vqdFucjmU1@mid.individual.net...
On 27/10/2023 09:56 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 12:24:06 +0000, Peter W wrote:
Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car
occupant who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a breath >>>> test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered >>>> before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in certain >>>> circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal
questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a
conflict between being required to provide a specimen and the right to >>>> remain silent.
Any thoughts?
Bottom line is driving is a privilege, not a right.
People frequently say that.
It is not correct.
I have a right to drive any roadworthy and adequately insured motor
vehicle which my licence covers and which I either own or have permission
(from the owner) to drive.
No official may prevent me from doing so (except in the rather unlikely
circumstance of my being temporarily incapacitated by alcohol, and either
legal or illegal drugs). I am one of tens of millions with exactly the
same rights. That right is not a privilege and may not be peremptorily
suspended.
That's simply the "right" to obey the Law.
The same applies to anybody who wants to stay out of prison.
The only difference being, that as a motorist, *you have a lot more laws
to obey*.than does a non-driver. On pain of a possible fine, licence points, and even possible imprisonment
Some "right" !
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 15:29:33 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2023 09:56 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted (re: driving being a "privilege" rather than a right)]
People frequently say that.
It is not correct.
But what is "correct" these days ? And does it matter ?
Besides there are copious amounts of RTAs that can be constructed to give
a police officer (a) the power to stop you, and (b) the power to ask you
to provide certain details as laid out in the acts.
Or are you saying you'd just whizz past a police officer signalling you
to stop shouting out how wrong you are as you disappear into the
distance ?
Me ? I'd stop.
On 27/10/2023 09:56 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 12:24:06 +0000, Peter W wrote:
Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car
occupant who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a breath >>> test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered
before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in certain >>> circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal
questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a
conflict between being required to provide a specimen and the right to
remain silent.
Any thoughts?
Bottom line is driving is a privilege, not a right.
People frequently say that.
It is not correct.
I have a right to drive any roadworthy and adequately insured motor
vehicle which my licence covers and which I either own or have
permission (from the owner) to drive.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 15:29:33 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/10/2023 09:56 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 12:24:06 +0000, Peter W wrote:
Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car
occupant who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a
breath
test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered >>>> before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in
certain
circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal
questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a
conflict between being required to provide a specimen and the right to >>>> remain silent.
Any thoughts?
Bottom line is driving is a privilege, not a right.
People frequently say that.
It is not correct.
I have a right to drive any roadworthy and adequately insured motor
vehicle which my licence covers and which I either own or have
permission (from the owner) to drive.
The mere fact that you need a licence to do it demonstrates that it's
not a right.
Your licence can't be arbitrarily withdrawn, but it can
be withdrawn under appropriate circumstances.
It's not like, say, your right to walk
along a public right of way, which cannot be withdrawn.
Privileges are things enjoyed by people as a result of their wealth or position.
That's simply the "right" to obey the Law.
The same applies to anybody who wants to stay out of prison.
The only difference being, that as a motorist, *you have a lot more laws
to obey*.than does a non-driver. On pain of a possible fine, licence points, and even possible imprisonment
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 23:58:45 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
Privileges are things enjoyed by people as a result of their wealth or
position.
Ultimately freedom is a privilege
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
However, we haven't yet seen anyone cite a law that drivers are
That's simply the "right" to obey the Law.
The same applies to anybody who wants to stay out of prison.
The only difference being, that as a motorist, *you have a lot more laws
to obey*.than does a non-driver. On pain of a possible fine, licence
points,
and even possible imprisonment
committing an offence by not stating their age.
The mere fact that you need a licence to do it demonstrates that it's not a right. Your licence can't be arbitrarily withdrawn, but it can be withdrawn under appropriate circumstances. It's not like, say, your right to walk
along a public right of way, which cannot be withdrawn.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 15:29:33 +0100, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/10/2023 09:56 am, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 12:24:06 +0000, Peter W wrote:
Specimen of Breath
In a weak moment I surfed across a reality police show where a car
occupant who was suspected of being the driver was subjected to a breath >>>> test.
The 'driver' was asked his age as the device required it to be entered >>>> before taking the sample.
Whilst there is a requirement to provide a specimen of breath in certain >>>> circumstances I wonder if there is any compulsion to answer personal
questions in order to assist the officer in completing the procedure?
Obstruction seems a likely get-out for the police but I can see a
conflict between being required to provide a specimen and the right to >>>> remain silent.
Any thoughts?
Bottom line is driving is a privilege, not a right.
People frequently say that.
It is not correct.
I have a right to drive any roadworthy and adequately insured motor
vehicle which my licence covers and which I either own or have
permission (from the owner) to drive.
The mere fact that you need a licence to do it demonstrates that it's not a right.
Your licence can't be arbitrarily withdrawn, but it can be withdrawn
under appropriate circumstances. It's not like, say, your right to walk
along a public right of way, which cannot be withdrawn.
Mark
However, we haven't yet seen anyone cite a law that drivers are
committing an offence by not stating their age.
The RTA's of 88/91 already quoted defined the offences suspected DD and
the duty of the perp to identify themselves
The Police Act of 1996 makes it an offence for the perp to give
Plod the run around in all such circumstances
However, we haven't yet seen anyone cite a law that drivers are
committing an offence by not stating their age.
The RTA's of 88/91 already quoted defined the offences suspected DD and
the duty of the perp to identify themselves
Supply identity, but no mention of other details such as age,
and only when someone is *accused* of a relevant offence, not suspected,
as has already been pointed out
The Police Act of 1996 makes it an offence for the perp to give
Plod the run around in all such circumstances
Please cite which section
In the absence of a licence being produced what other simple questions
do you imagine plod could ask a driver in an attempt to confirm their identity ?
On 30/10/2023 13:21, billy bookcase wrote:
In the absence of a licence being produced what other simple questions do
you imagine plod could ask a driver in an attempt to confirm their
identity ?
I imagine name and address would suffice.
I also expect they have access to the DVLA's licence database, complete
with driver's pictures.
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message news:uhnph3$cdsv$1@dont-email.me...
However, we haven't yet seen anyone cite a law that drivers are
committing an offence by not stating their age.
The RTA's of 88/91 already quoted defined the offences suspected DD and
the duty of the perp to identify themselves
Supply identity, but no mention of other details such as age,
In the absence of a licence being produced what other simple questions
do you imagine plod could ask a driver in an attempt to confirm their identity ?
and only when someone is *accused* of a relevant offence, not suspected,
Oh really ? So the police are only able to administer breath tests
after "accusing" drivers of drunk driving, are they ?
Rather than merely suspecting them ?
as has already been pointed out
Pointed out by whom exactly ? .
The Police Act of 1996 makes it an offence for the perp to give
Plod the run around in all such circumstances
Please cite which section
No. You cite the section that states that withholding information
when required to do so by the section 172 of the RTA 91, does
*not* amount to obstructing the police in the execution of
their duty.
On 30/10/2023 13:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message
news:uhnph3$cdsv$1@dont-email.me...
However, we haven't yet seen anyone cite a law that drivers are
committing an offence by not stating their age.
The RTA's of 88/91 already quoted defined the offences suspected DD and >>>> the duty of the perp to identify themselves
Supply identity, but no mention of other details such as age,
In the absence of a licence being produced what other simple questions
do you imagine plod could ask a driver in an attempt to confirm their
identity ?
and only when someone is *accused* of a relevant offence, not suspected,
Oh really ? So the police are only able to administer breath tests
after "accusing" drivers of drunk driving, are they ?
Rather than merely suspecting them ?
as has already been pointed out
Pointed out by whom exactly ? .
The Police Act of 1996 makes it an offence for the perp to give
Plod the run around in all such circumstances
Please cite which section
No. You cite the section that states that withholding information
when required to do so by the section 172 of the RTA 91, does
*not* amount to obstructing the police in the execution of
their duty.
The RTA 1991 does not have a S 172.
Perhaps you mean the RTA 1988.
Section 172 of that act only requires the "identity" of the driver to be disclosed, no compulsion to reveal any other details, and only when the driver is *accused* of a relevant offence, not merely suspected.
So revealing age is not required under S172, which in most cases does not apply anyway to a roadside stop, as the driver at that stage is not
accused of an offence, so cannot be construed as obstruction.
No. You cite the section that states that withholding information
when required to do so by the section 172 of the RTA 91, does
*not* amount to obstructing the police in the execution of
their duty.
The RTA 1991 does not have a S 172.
Perhaps you mean the RTA 1988.
Section 172 of that act only requires the "identity" of the driver to be
disclosed, no compulsion to reveal any other details, and only when the
driver is *accused* of a relevant offence, not merely suspected.
So revealing age is not required under S172, which in most cases does not
apply anyway to a roadside stop, as the driver at that stage is not
accused of an offence, so cannot be construed as obstruction.
quote:
RTA 88
164 Power of constables to require production of driving licence and in ****certain cases statement of date of birth ****
(1)Any of the following persons-
(a) a person driving a motor vehicle on a road,
unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crossheading/powers-of-constables-and-other-authorised-persons/enacted
Bingo ! Bingo !
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message news:uhta8m$1itav$1@dont-email.me...
On 30/10/2023 13:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message
news:uhnph3$cdsv$1@dont-email.me...
However, we haven't yet seen anyone cite a law that drivers are
committing an offence by not stating their age.
The RTA's of 88/91 already quoted defined the offences suspected DD and >>>>> the duty of the perp to identify themselves
Supply identity, but no mention of other details such as age,
In the absence of a licence being produced what other simple questions
do you imagine plod could ask a driver in an attempt to confirm their
identity ?
and only when someone is *accused* of a relevant offence, not suspected, >>>Oh really ? So the police are only able to administer breath tests
after "accusing" drivers of drunk driving, are they ?
Rather than merely suspecting them ?
as has already been pointed out
Pointed out by whom exactly ? .
The Police Act of 1996 makes it an offence for the perp to give
Plod the run around in all such circumstances
Please cite which section
No. You cite the section that states that withholding information
when required to do so by the section 172 of the RTA 91, does
*not* amount to obstructing the police in the execution of
their duty.
The RTA 1991 does not have a S 172.
Perhaps you mean the RTA 1988.
Section 172 of that act only requires the "identity" of the driver to be
disclosed, no compulsion to reveal any other details, and only when the
driver is *accused* of a relevant offence, not merely suspected.
So revealing age is not required under S172, which in most cases does not
apply anyway to a roadside stop, as the driver at that stage is not
accused of an offence, so cannot be construed as obstruction.
quote:
RTA 88
164 Power of constables to require production of driving licence and in ****certain cases statement of date of birth ****
(1)Any of the following persons-
(a) a person driving a motor vehicle on a road,
unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crossheading/powers-of-constables-and-other-authorised-persons/enacted
Bingo ! Bingo !
On 30/10/2023 13:21, billy bookcase wrote:
No. You cite the section that states that withholding information
when required to do so by the section 172 of the RTA 91, does
*not* amount to obstructing the police in the execution of
their duty.
The RTA 1991 does not have a S 172.
Perhaps you mean the RTA 1988.
Section 172 of that act only requires the "identity" of the driver to
be disclosed, no compulsion to reveal any other details, and only when
the driver is *accused* of a relevant offence, not merely suspected.
So revealing age is not required under S172, which in most cases does
not apply anyway to a roadside stop, as the driver at that stage is
not accused of an offence, so cannot be construed as obstruction.
Jeff
No. You cite the section that states that withholding information
when required to do so by the section 172 of the RTA 91, does
*not* amount to obstructing the police in the execution of
their duty.
The RTA 1991 does not have a S 172.
Perhaps you mean the RTA 1988.
Section 172 of that act only requires the "identity" of the driver to be >>> disclosed, no compulsion to reveal any other details, and only when the
driver is *accused* of a relevant offence, not merely suspected.
So revealing age is not required under S172, which in most cases does
not
apply anyway to a roadside stop, as the driver at that stage is not
accused of an offence, so cannot be construed as obstruction.
quote:
RTA 88
164 Power of constables to require production of driving licence and in
****certain cases statement of date of birth ****
(1)Any of the following persons-
(a) a person driving a motor vehicle on a road,
unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crossheading/powers-of-constables-and-other-authorised-persons/enacted
Bingo ! Bingo !
You ignore the "in certain cases"
On Wed, 01 Nov 2023 15:44:18 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message( 2) Such a person must in prescribed circumstances, on being so required
news:uhta8m$1itav$1@dont-email.me...
On 30/10/2023 13:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message
news:uhnph3$cdsv$1@dont-email.me...
However, we haven't yet seen anyone cite a law that drivers are
committing an offence by not stating their age.
The RTA's of 88/91 already quoted defined the offences suspected DD >>>>>> and
the duty of the perp to identify themselves
Supply identity, but no mention of other details such as age,
In the absence of a licence being produced what other simple questions >>>> do you imagine plod could ask a driver in an attempt to confirm their
identity ?
and only when someone is *accused* of a relevant offence, not
suspected,
Oh really ? So the police are only able to administer breath tests
after "accusing" drivers of drunk driving, are they ?
Rather than merely suspecting them ?
as has already been pointed out
Pointed out by whom exactly ? .
The Police Act of 1996 makes it an offence for the perp to give
Plod the run around in all such circumstances
Please cite which section
No. You cite the section that states that withholding information
when required to do so by the section 172 of the RTA 91, does
*not* amount to obstructing the police in the execution of
their duty.
The RTA 1991 does not have a S 172.
Perhaps you mean the RTA 1988.
Section 172 of that act only requires the "identity" of the driver to be >>> disclosed, no compulsion to reveal any other details, and only when the
driver is *accused* of a relevant offence, not merely suspected.
So revealing age is not required under S172, which in most cases does
not
apply anyway to a roadside stop, as the driver at that stage is not
accused of an offence, so cannot be construed as obstruction.
quote:
RTA 88
164 Power of constables to require production of driving licence and in
****certain cases statement of date of birth ****
(1)Any of the following persons-
(a) a person driving a motor vehicle on a road,
unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crossheading/powers-of-constables-and-other-authorised-persons/enacted
Bingo ! Bingo !
by the constable, state his date of birth.
Are there any such prescribed circumstances?
Thanks for all input, speculation abounds but I feel this is the most convincing argument, that is there is no compulsion to answer.
I'm happy to draw a line there.
Comprehensive breath testing statistical data collected
In 2008, The Department for Transport funded every police force in
England and Wales in order to buy newly approved, memory equipped
roadside screening breath testing devices. These screening devices
are able to collect and store data electronically which can then
be transferred to a central database. The data they can store includes
* the age * and gender of any driver required to take a preliminary breath test alongside the date and time; the reason for the test and the test result. Comprehensive statistical data on drivers who are below the
legal limit and their involvement in any accident starts being
collected for the first time in history.
unquote
https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_information_uklawhistory.php
Where quite obviously, if the driver isn't carrying a licence, it will
be necessary for the police to ask the driver's age.
Comprehensive breath testing statistical data collected
In 2008, The Department for Transport funded every police force in
England and Wales in order to buy newly approved, memory equipped
roadside screening breath testing devices. These screening devices
are able to collect and store data electronically which can then
be transferred to a central database. The data they can store includes
* the age * and gender of any driver required to take a preliminary
breath
test alongside the date and time; the reason for the test and the test
result. Comprehensive statistical data on drivers who are below the
legal limit and their involvement in any accident starts being
collected for the first time in history.
unquote
https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_information_uklawhistory.php
Where quite obviously, if the driver isn't carrying a licence, it will
be necessary for the police to ask the driver's age.
Obviously not in all cases as I have been breathalysed after being in a
'not my fault accident' without my licence on me, and I was not even given
an HORT1, let alone asked for my age. Of course these days just name and address is probably sufficient to give full licence and insurance details
if checked by computer.
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
Comprehensive breath testing statistical data collected
In 2008, The Department for Transport funded every police force in
England and Wales in order to buy newly approved, memory equipped
roadside screening breath testing devices. These screening devices
are able to collect and store data electronically which can then
be transferred to a central database. The data they can store includes
* the age * and gender of any driver required to take a preliminary
breath
test alongside the date and time; the reason for the test and the test
result. Comprehensive statistical data on drivers who are below the
legal limit and their involvement in any accident starts being
collected for the first time in history.
unquote
https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_information_uklawhistory.php
Where quite obviously, if the driver isn't carrying a licence, it will
be necessary for the police to ask the driver's age.
Obviously not in all cases as I have been breathalysed after being in a
'not my fault accident' without my licence on me, and I was not even given >> an HORT1, let alone asked for my age. Of course these days just name and
address is probably sufficient to give full licence and insurance details
if checked by computer.
It is "obviously", if they want to gather the data.
Now let's see:
First, it was "The police can't ask you your age".
Then, when specific legistlation was produced proving that
very point" the goal posts were moved to "but under what
circumstances ?
Now at this point I must apologise; as for some unknown reason
I'm unable to find a website which confirms that the police
might well ask drivers for their age in order to catch them
out, if they suspect they're going to give a false identity
As I said I can't really explain why.the police themselves
don't spell all this out - as after all don't we all have a
right to know ?
But in any case in addition I've produced the data gathering
function.
All of which apparently doesn't count either; as it doesn't
conform to "your own personal experience"
Well let me tell you something of "my own personal experience".
In addition to the bike, I run a small van. Which I use only very occasionally to carry heavy items around. This was first registered
in 2000 and is in very good nick and had a very low mileage
when I bought it S/H. Which is why I hang onto it as I'd never find
another one like it. However it's not ULEZ compliant.
So that as soon as ULEZ was implemented, if I drove my van
past the top of my road, I faced an ÂŁ180 fine reduced to ÂŁ90
if paid within 14 days.
However I could instead pay ÂŁ12.50 a day. Which as I don't the
van much, is no big deal. Fair enough, I'll just pay the
ÂŁ12.50.
But in order to pay the ÂŁ12.50 I have to open a ULEZ Account
with Tell. And in order for that account to be secure, I have to
tell Tell, *my mother's maiden name"
So that there are people complaining, or denying that a policeman
can ask a driver for their age,
*while I know from my own personal experience*
That in order to drive my van past the top of my road and not
incur a ÂŁ180 fine (reduced to ÂŁ90 within 14 days) I had to give
TfL my mother's maiden name.
Trump that !
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message news:ui2coj$2n97q$2@dont-email.me...
Comprehensive breath testing statistical data collected
In 2008, The Department for Transport funded every police force in
England and Wales in order to buy newly approved, memory equipped
roadside screening breath testing devices. These screening devices
are able to collect and store data electronically which can then
be transferred to a central database. The data they can store includes
* the age * and gender of any driver required to take a preliminary
breath
test alongside the date and time; the reason for the test and the test
result. Comprehensive statistical data on drivers who are below the
legal limit and their involvement in any accident starts being
collected for the first time in history.
unquote
https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_information_uklawhistory.php
Where quite obviously, if the driver isn't carrying a licence, it will
be necessary for the police to ask the driver's age.
Obviously not in all cases as I have been breathalysed after being in a
'not my fault accident' without my licence on me, and I was not even given >> an HORT1, let alone asked for my age. Of course these days just name and
address is probably sufficient to give full licence and insurance details
if checked by computer.
It is "obviously", if they want to gather the data.
Now let's see:
First, it was "The police can't ask you your age".
Then, when specific legistlation was produced proving that
very point" the goal posts were moved to "but under what
circumstances ?
Now at this point I must apologise; as for some unknown reason
I'm unable to find a website which confirms that the police
might well ask drivers for their age in order to catch them
out, if they suspect they're going to give a false identity
As I said I can't really explain why.the police themselves
don't spell all this out - as after all don't we all have a
right to know ?
But in any case in addition I've produced the data gathering
function.
All of which apparently doesn't count either; as it doesn't
conform to "your own personal experience"
Well let me tell you something of "my own personal experience".
In addition to the bike, I run a small van. Which I use only very occasionally to carry heavy items around. This was first registered
in 2000 and is in very good nick and had a very low mileage
when I bought it S/H. Which is why I hang onto it as I'd never find
another one like it. However it's not ULEZ compliant.
So that as soon as ULEZ was implemented, if I drove my van
past the top of my road, I faced an Ģ180 fine reduced to Ģ90
if paid within 14 days.
However I could instead pay Ģ12.50 a day. Which as I don't the
van much, is no big deal. Fair enough, I'll just pay the
Ģ12.50.
But in order to pay the Ģ12.50 I have to open a ULEZ Account
with Tell. And in order for that account to be secure, I have to
tell Tell, *my mother's maiden name"
So that there are people complaining, or denying that a policeman
can ask a driver for their age,
*while I know from my own personal experience*
That in order to drive my van past the top of my road and not
incur a Ģ180 fine (reduced to Ģ90 within 14 days) I had to give
TfL my mother's maiden name.
Trump that !
bb
On 3 Nov 2023 at 12:57:17 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message
news:ui2coj$2n97q$2@dont-email.me...
Comprehensive breath testing statistical data collected
In 2008, The Department for Transport funded every police force in
England and Wales in order to buy newly approved, memory equipped
roadside screening breath testing devices. These screening devices
are able to collect and store data electronically which can then
be transferred to a central database. The data they can store includes >>>> * the age * and gender of any driver required to take a preliminary
breath
test alongside the date and time; the reason for the test and the test >>>> result. Comprehensive statistical data on drivers who are below the
legal limit and their involvement in any accident starts being
collected for the first time in history.
unquote
https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_information_uklawhistory.php >>>>
Where quite obviously, if the driver isn't carrying a licence, it will >>>> be necessary for the police to ask the driver's age.
Obviously not in all cases as I have been breathalysed after being in a
'not my fault accident' without my licence on me, and I was not even
given
an HORT1, let alone asked for my age. Of course these days just name and >>> address is probably sufficient to give full licence and insurance
details
if checked by computer.
It is "obviously", if they want to gather the data.
Now let's see:
First, it was "The police can't ask you your age".
Then, when specific legistlation was produced proving that
very point" the goal posts were moved to "but under what
circumstances ?
Now at this point I must apologise; as for some unknown reason
I'm unable to find a website which confirms that the police
might well ask drivers for their age in order to catch them
out, if they suspect they're going to give a false identity
As I said I can't really explain why.the police themselves
don't spell all this out - as after all don't we all have a
right to know ?
But in any case in addition I've produced the data gathering
function.
All of which apparently doesn't count either; as it doesn't
conform to "your own personal experience"
Well let me tell you something of "my own personal experience".
In addition to the bike, I run a small van. Which I use only very
occasionally to carry heavy items around. This was first registered
in 2000 and is in very good nick and had a very low mileage
when I bought it S/H. Which is why I hang onto it as I'd never find
another one like it. However it's not ULEZ compliant.
So that as soon as ULEZ was implemented, if I drove my van
past the top of my road, I faced an G180 fine reduced to G90
if paid within 14 days.
However I could instead pay G12.50 a day. Which as I don't the
van much, is no big deal. Fair enough, I'll just pay the
G12.50.
But in order to pay the G12.50 I have to open a ULEZ Account
with Tell. And in order for that account to be secure, I have to
tell Tell, *my mother's maiden name"
So that there are people complaining, or denying that a policeman
can ask a driver for their age,
*while I know from my own personal experience*
That in order to drive my van past the top of my road and not
incur a G180 fine (reduced to G90 within 14 days) I had to give
TfL my mother's maiden name.
Trump that !
bb
I really, really doubt that you had to give them your mather's maiden
name. I suspect that, like most organisations, you had to give them a
string of letters that you and they agreed would be the correct response
to the challenge: "What is your mother's maiden name?"
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:kqkvq1F7bqpU1@mid.individual.net...
On 3 Nov 2023 at 12:57:17 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote in message
news:ui2coj$2n97q$2@dont-email.me...
Comprehensive breath testing statistical data collected
In 2008, The Department for Transport funded every police force in
England and Wales in order to buy newly approved, memory equipped
roadside screening breath testing devices. These screening devices
are able to collect and store data electronically which can then
be transferred to a central database. The data they can store includes >>>>> * the age * and gender of any driver required to take a preliminary
breath
test alongside the date and time; the reason for the test and the test >>>>> result. Comprehensive statistical data on drivers who are below the
legal limit and their involvement in any accident starts being
collected for the first time in history.
unquote
https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_information_uklawhistory.php >>>>>
Where quite obviously, if the driver isn't carrying a licence, it will >>>>> be necessary for the police to ask the driver's age.
Obviously not in all cases as I have been breathalysed after being in a >>>> 'not my fault accident' without my licence on me, and I was not even
given
an HORT1, let alone asked for my age. Of course these days just name and >>>> address is probably sufficient to give full licence and insurance
details
if checked by computer.
It is "obviously", if they want to gather the data.
Now let's see:
First, it was "The police can't ask you your age".
Then, when specific legistlation was produced proving that
very point" the goal posts were moved to "but under what
circumstances ?
Now at this point I must apologise; as for some unknown reason
I'm unable to find a website which confirms that the police
might well ask drivers for their age in order to catch them
out, if they suspect they're going to give a false identity
As I said I can't really explain why.the police themselves
don't spell all this out - as after all don't we all have a
right to know ?
But in any case in addition I've produced the data gathering
function.
All of which apparently doesn't count either; as it doesn't
conform to "your own personal experience"
Well let me tell you something of "my own personal experience".
In addition to the bike, I run a small van. Which I use only very
occasionally to carry heavy items around. This was first registered
in 2000 and is in very good nick and had a very low mileage
when I bought it S/H. Which is why I hang onto it as I'd never find
another one like it. However it's not ULEZ compliant.
So that as soon as ULEZ was implemented, if I drove my van
past the top of my road, I faced an G180 fine reduced to G90
if paid within 14 days.
However I could instead pay G12.50 a day. Which as I don't the
van much, is no big deal. Fair enough, I'll just pay the
G12.50.
But in order to pay the G12.50 I have to open a ULEZ Account
with Tell. And in order for that account to be secure, I have to
tell Tell, *my mother's maiden name"
So that there are people complaining, or denying that a policeman
can ask a driver for their age,
*while I know from my own personal experience*
That in order to drive my van past the top of my road and not
incur a G180 fine (reduced to G90 within 14 days) I had to give
TfL my mother's maiden name.
Trump that !
bb
I really, really doubt that you had to give them your mather's maiden
name. I suspect that, like most organisations, you had to give them a
string of letters that you and they agreed would be the correct response
to the challenge: "What is your mother's maiden name?"
So if asked such a question, what answer would most sensible people
(orphans excepted) most likely give ?
a) A spurious name, made up on the spot which they would quite possibly immediately forget, if not written down ?
b) Their mother's actual maiden name, which they already knew and so
couldn't possibly forget ?
So that in asking for your mother's maiden name, there was a realistic expectation on the part of whoever was ultimately responsible for designing the interface, that respondents would answer b) and thus give their
mothers actual maiden name. Regardless of the fact that it was impossible
to check.
bb
It depends if the "sensible" person has an attention span longer than the average tadpole. If he or she does, they will have a pre-prepared
"mother's
maiden name" that they will remember, seeing this is not the first time
they
have been asked the question.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:kql6ijF8edgU1@mid.individual.net...
It depends if the "sensible" person has an attention span longer than the
average tadpole. If he or she does, they will have a pre-prepared
"mother's
maiden name" that they will remember, seeing this is not the first time
they
have been asked the question.
But why would a "sensible" person need to have a "pre-prepared" "mother's maiden
name", that they will remember, in the first place ?
What's wrong with just using the real one ?
bb
On 3 Nov 2023 at 22:24:42 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:kql6ijF8edgU1@mid.individual.net...
It depends if the "sensible" person has an attention span longer than
the
average tadpole. If he or she does, they will have a pre-prepared
"mother's
maiden name" that they will remember, seeing this is not the first time
they
have been asked the question.
But why would a "sensible" person need to have a "pre-prepared"
"mother's
maiden
name", that they will remember, in the first place ?
What's wrong with just using the real one ?
bb
Nothing at all. The person who originally mentioned it found the question invasive in the context it was asked.
--
Roger Hayter
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:kqkvq1F7bqpU1@mid.individual.net...
I really, really doubt that you had to give them your mather's maiden
name. I suspect that, like most organisations, you had to give them a
string of letters that you and they agreed would be the correct response
to the challenge: "What is your mother's maiden name?"
So if asked such a question, what answer would most sensible people
(orphans excepted) most likely give ?
a) A spurious name, made up on the spot which they would quite possibly immediately forget, if not written down ?
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:kqkvq1F7bqpU1@mid.individual.net...
I really, really doubt that you had to give them your mather's maiden
name. I suspect that, like most organisations, you had to give them a
string of letters that you and they agreed would be the correct response >>> to the challenge: "What is your mother's maiden name?"
So if asked such a question, what answer would most sensible people
(orphans excepted) most likely give ?
a) A spurious name, made up on the spot which they would quite possibly
immediately forget, if not written down ?
This one, in the context of opening a ULEZ account. It's what I do every
time some service provider asks for my mother's maiden name.
You shouldn't give the *real* MMN to anyone who asks for it, because
then there a lot of organisations who know your real MMN
and that you use it to authenticate yourself to other websites.
A very obvious security risk akin to using the same username and PW
on multiple sites.
"Handsome Jack" <Jack@handsome.com> wrote in message news:uicrq0$tri1$1@dont-email.me...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:kqkvq1F7bqpU1@mid.individual.net...
I really, really doubt that you had to give them your mather's maiden
name. I suspect that, like most organisations, you had to give them a
string of letters that you and they agreed would be the correct response >>>> to the challenge: "What is your mother's maiden name?"
So if asked such a question, what answer would most sensible people
(orphans excepted) most likely give ?
a) A spurious name, made up on the spot which they would quite possibly >>> immediately forget, if not written down ?
This one, in the context of opening a ULEZ account. It's what I do every
time some service provider asks for my mother's maiden name.
Except very few do, IME.
I've signed up to numerous *bank accounts* without ever being asked my mother's maiden name. Usually its on the lines of "significant name" "significant place" and maybe "significant year" as security questions.
You shouldn't give the *real* MMN to anyone who asks for it, because
then there a lot of organisations who know your real MMN
Oh really ? And how did they manage that ?
and that you use it to authenticate yourself to other websites.
Bearing in mind your answer to the last question, what difference
would it make, whether I used my real MMN, or a fake one ?
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
[snip]
You shouldn't give the *real* MMN to anyone who asks for it, because
then there a lot of organisations who know your real MMN
Oh really ? And how did they manage that ?
Because if you give the *real* MMN to anyone who asks for it,
then you have told them.
and that you use it to authenticate yourself to other websites.
Bearing in mind your answer to the last question, what difference
would it make, whether I used my real MMN, or a fake one ?
Because if you always use a fake one you can give a different
MMN to every website, and so the security risk is much less.
"Handsome Jack" <Jack@handsome.com> wrote in message news:uisl9g$i0k9$1@dont-email.me...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
[snip]
You shouldn't give the *real* MMN to anyone who asks for it, because
then there a lot of organisations who know your real MMN
Oh really ? And how did they manage that ?
Because if you give the *real* MMN to anyone who asks for it,
then you have told them.
But how would they know you'd given the ******real****** MMN
in the first place ? That's *what I'm asking*.
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
and that you use it to authenticate yourself to other websites.
Bearing in mind your answer to the last question, what difference
would it make, whether I used my real MMN, or a fake one ?
Because if you always use a fake one you can give a different
MMN to every website, and so the security risk is much less.
That's providing you can remember them all. A point I raised
quite early on.
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Handsome Jack" <Jack@handsome.com> wrote in message
news:uisl9g$i0k9$1@dont-email.me...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
[snip]
You shouldn't give the *real* MMN to anyone who asks for it, because >>>>> then there a lot of organisations who know your real MMN
Oh really ? And how did they manage that ?
Because if you give the *real* MMN to anyone who asks for it,
then you have told them.
But how would they know you'd given the ******real****** MMN
in the first place ? That's *what I'm asking*.
They don't have to know, but if your practice is to give the
real MMN to anyone who asks for it, then they *will* have the
real one.
As it happens, I have just had to phone a bank this morning,
and they *did* ask for my mothers' maiden name. The odd thing
was that I have never given it to them - if I had, I would have
recorded the name I used - so they couldn't have used it for
authentication anyway!
and that you use it to authenticate yourself to other websites.
Bearing in mind your answer to the last question, what difference
would it make, whether I used my real MMN, or a fake one ?
Because if you always use a fake one you can give a different
MMN to every website, and so the security risk is much less.
That's providing you can remember them all. A point I raised
quite early on.
You store them in the same way as all your other login names
and passwords. Preferably encrypted.
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message news:fXK4N.104993$iuU8.32032@fx06.ams4...
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.
Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents; although quite obviously such a
possibility has never occurred to the person who first thought
of using MMN as a memorable word; nor seemingly to at least
two posters on this forum.,
The essence of good manners is not making other people
feel uncomfortable, unless this is absolutely necessary.
Which it clearly isn't in this case. But which simply
would serve to remind orphans of the fact that they're
"different" from everybody else; as if they didn't already
need reminding
bb
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message news:fXK4N.104993$iuU8.32032@fx06.ams4...
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.
Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
although quite obviously such a
possibility has never occurred to the person who first thought
of using MMN as a memorable word; nor seemingly to at least
two posters on this forum.,
The essence of good manners is not making other people
feel uncomfortable, unless this is absolutely necessary.
Which it clearly isn't in this case. But which simply
would serve to remind orphans of the fact that they're
"different" from everybody else; as if they didn't already
need reminding
bb
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
news:fXK4N.104993$iuU8.32032@fx06.ams4...
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.
Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some people
who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
news:fXK4N.104993$iuU8.32032@fx06.ams4...
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.
Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
Even the children of so-called "single parent families" (which in any
case do not exist).
although quite obviously such a
possibility has never occurred to the person who first thought
of using MMN as a memorable word; nor seemingly to at least
two posters on this forum.,
The essence of good manners is not making other people
feel uncomfortable, unless this is absolutely necessary.
Which it clearly isn't in this case. But which simply
would serve to remind orphans of the fact that they're
"different" from everybody else; as if they didn't already
need reminding
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
news:fXK4N.104993$iuU8.32032@fx06.ams4...
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.
Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote: >>>
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some people
who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and borne by the
mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra statements, largely blamed on God, which turn out to be false generalisations. Not everyone has just two parents. Supplementary question for extra points: which one should the father marry, the egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote: >>>
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some people
who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and borne by the
mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra statements, largely blamed on God, which turn out to be false generalisations. Not everyone has just two parents. Supplementary question for extra points: which one should the father marry, the egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
On 15/11/2023 00:49, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
news:fXK4N.104993$iuU8.32032@fx06.ams4...
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.
Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Are you dismissing the rather obvious, that religions are based on
immaculate conception(s)
Everyone has two parents.
Not according to many, and there have been examples of human
parthenogenesis.
Even the children of so-called "single parent families" (which in any
case do not exist).
I don't see that as relevant.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some people
who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message news:kriis9FltscU3@mid.individual.net...
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
news:fXK4N.104993$iuU8.32032@fx06.ams4...
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.
Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
For now
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12410117/Leading-womb-transplant-experts-say-medically-possible-transgender-women-natural-pregnancies-hope-offer-procedure-trans-couples-years.html
On 15/11/2023 01:28 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote: >>>>
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being >>>>>>>>> displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some people
who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and borne by the
mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra statements, largely blamed on
God, which turn out to be false generalisations. Not everyone has just two >> parents. Supplementary question for extra points: which one should the father
marry, the egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
What on Earth are you talking about?
On 15/11/2023 01:56 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/11/2023 00:49, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
news:fXK4N.104993$iuU8.32032@fx06.ams4...
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.
Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Are you dismissing the rather obvious, that religions are based on
immaculate conception(s)
I am ignoring such things. I assume you will do the same.
Everyone has two parents.
Not according to many, and there have been examples of human
parthenogenesis.
Oh dear... oh dear...
Is that the level that this is going to descend to?
Such groupings are more often used as examples of "single-parenthood"Even the children of so-called "single parent families" (which in any
case do not exist).
I don't see that as relevant.
than are the results of parthenogenesis.
On 15 Nov 2023 at 16:18:16 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 01:28 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote: >>>>>
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being >>>>>>>>>> displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every >>>>>>>>>> five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some people >>>> who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and borne by the
mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra statements, largely blamed on
God, which turn out to be false generalisations. Not everyone has just two >>> parents. Supplementary question for extra points: which one should the father
marry, the egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
What on Earth are you talking about?
People with 3 biological parents.
On 15/11/2023 01:28 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com>
wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com>
wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome
Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious
insensitivity being displayed towards orphans. As if
they need reminding, every five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong. Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue. Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some
people who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of
that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and
borne by the mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra
statements, largely blamed on God, which turn out to be false
generalisations. Not everyone has just two parents. Supplementary
question for extra points: which one should the father marry, the
egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
What on Earth are you talking about?
On 15/11/2023 16:18, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2023 01:28 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com>
wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com>
wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome
Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious
insensitivity being displayed towards orphans. As if
they need reminding, every five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong. Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue. Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some
people who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of
that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and
borne by the mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra
statements, largely blamed on God, which turn out to be false
generalisations. Not everyone has just two parents. Supplementary
question for extra points: which one should the father marry, the
egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
What on Earth are you talking about?
Without intending to be snide in any way, IVF has gone a long way, with
donor eggs, donor sperm and potentially even mitochondrial DNA now
available. It's not uncommon for the mother to have no genetic
connection to the child they bear...
On 15/11/2023 04:56 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 16:18:16 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 01:28 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being >>>>>>>>>>> displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every >>>>>>>>>>> five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some
people
who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and
borne by the
mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra statements, largely
blamed on
God, which turn out to be false generalisations. Not everyone has
just two
parents. Supplementary question for extra points: which one should
the father
marry, the egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
What on Earth are you talking about?
People with 3 biological parents.
At the risk or repetition, deviation and/or hesitation, I have to ask
again:
What on Earth are you talking about?
On 15/11/2023 04:56 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 16:18:16 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 01:28 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being >>>>>>>>>>> displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every >>>>>>>>>>> five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some people >>>>> who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and borne by the
mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra statements, largely blamed on
God, which turn out to be false generalisations. Not everyone has just two >>>> parents. Supplementary question for extra points: which one should the father
marry, the egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
What on Earth are you talking about?
People with 3 biological parents.
At the risk or repetition, deviation and/or hesitation, I have to ask again:
What on Earth are you talking about
On 15/11/2023 04:38 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/11/2023 16:18, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2023 01:28 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com>
wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com>
wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <HandsomeJack> wrote: >>>>>>
And that's without mentioning the obvious
insensitivity being displayed towards orphans. As if
they need reminding, every five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong. Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue. Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some
people who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of
that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and
borne by the mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra
statements, largely blamed on God, which turn out to be false
generalisations. Not everyone has just two parents. Supplementary
question for extra points: which one should the father marry, the
egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
What on Earth are you talking about?
Without intending to be snide in any way, IVF has gone a long way, with
donor eggs, donor sperm and potentially even mitochondrial DNA now
available. It's not uncommon for the mother to have no genetic
connection to the child they bear...
...and so is not the mother.
Someone else is.
On 15/11/2023 17:14, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2023 04:56 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 16:18:16 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 01:28 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being >>>>>>>>>>>> displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every >>>>>>>>>>>> five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some
people
who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and
borne by the
mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra statements, largely
blamed on
God, which turn out to be false generalisations. Not everyone has
just two
parents. Supplementary question for extra points: which one should
the father
marry, the egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
What on Earth are you talking about?
People with 3 biological parents.
At the risk or repetition, deviation and/or hesitation, I have to ask
again:
What on Earth are you talking about?
You're becoming repetitive.
Are you really so in denial of the 3 potential sources sources of
material for a viable embryo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_replacement_therapy
At the risk or repetition, deviation and/or hesitation, I have to ask
again:
What on Earth are you talking about?
On 15/11/2023 04:38 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/11/2023 16:18, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2023 01:28 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com>
wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com>
wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome
Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious
insensitivity being displayed towards orphans. As if
they need reminding, every five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong. Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue. Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some
people who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of
that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and
borne by the mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra
statements, largely blamed on God, which turn out to be false
generalisations. Not everyone has just two parents. Supplementary
question for extra points: which one should the father marry, the
egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
What on Earth are you talking about?
Without intending to be snide in any way, IVF has gone a long way, with
donor eggs, donor sperm and potentially even mitochondrial DNA now
available. It's not uncommon for the mother to have no genetic
connection to the child they bear...
...and so is not the mother.
Someone else is.
On 15/11/2023 17:14, JNugent wrote:
At the risk or repetition, deviation and/or hesitation, I have to ask
again:
What on Earth are you talking about?
In the vast majority of cases a child will have a mother and a father.
The mother will have produced the egg, got sperm from a man to fertilise
it, and become pregnant.
Whether she lives with the father, or even knows who he is is
irrelevant, as is whether she got the sperm by the normal means or from
a donor.
In a minority of cases the woman is unable to produce eggs, or has a
genetic defect making it unwise to use them.
In those cases an egg from another woman is used.
In my book the child then has:
one father
one birth mother
one egg donor mother.
That's three.
On 15 Nov 2023 at 17:38:17 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 04:38 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/11/2023 16:18, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2023 01:28 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com>
wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com>
wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <HandsomeJack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious
insensitivity being displayed towards orphans. As if
they need reminding, every five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong. Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue. Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some
people who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of
that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and
borne by the mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra
statements, largely blamed on God, which turn out to be false
generalisations. Not everyone has just two parents. Supplementary
question for extra points: which one should the father marry, the
egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
What on Earth are you talking about?
Without intending to be snide in any way, IVF has gone a long way, with
donor eggs, donor sperm and potentially even mitochondrial DNA now
available. It's not uncommon for the mother to have no genetic
connection to the child they bear...
...and so is not the mother.
Someone else is.
So your judgement is that the woman who bore the baby for nine months is *not*
the mother? Solomon would be proud of that one!
On 15/11/2023 17:38, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2023 04:38 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/11/2023 16:18, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2023 01:28 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com>
wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com>
wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome
Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious
insensitivity being displayed towards orphans. As if
they need reminding, every five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong. Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue. Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some
people who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of
that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and
borne by the mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra
statements, largely blamed on God, which turn out to be false
generalisations. Not everyone has just two parents. Supplementary
question for extra points: which one should the father marry, the
egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
What on Earth are you talking about?
Without intending to be snide in any way, IVF has gone a long way, with
donor eggs, donor sperm and potentially even mitochondrial DNA now
available. It's not uncommon for the mother to have no genetic
connection to the child they bear...
...and so is not the mother.
Someone else is.
In a dictionary and legal sense, anyone giving birth to a child is
deemed to be its mother.
By way of example, a surrogate mother can hang onto her baby independent
of any contract signed.
I don't understand why you think differently. You seem to be doing a
Norman (of the Wisdom variety).
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote: >>>
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being
displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some people
who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and borne by the
mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra statements, largely blamed on God, which turn out to be false generalisations. Not everyone has just two parents. Supplementary question for extra points: which one should the father marry, the egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
On 15/11/2023 13:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote: >>>>
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being >>>>>>>>> displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some people
who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and borne by the
mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra statements, largely blamed on
God, which turn out to be false generalisations. Not everyone has just two >> parents. Supplementary question for extra points: which one should the father
marry, the egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
Biologically, in your exmple, the child still have just two parents. The same
applies where the child is carried by a surrogate.
But there is research and children, where parts of the egg are replaced by parts
from a donor, to overcome genetic diseases.
https://time.com/5569057/three-parent-baby-dna/
And daddy can marry whomsoever he wants.
On 16 Nov 2023 at 10:32:08 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 13:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote: >>>>>
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being >>>>>>>>>> displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every >>>>>>>>>> five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some people >>>> who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and borne by the
mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra statements, largely blamed on
God, which turn out to be false generalisations. Not everyone has just two >>> parents. Supplementary question for extra points: which one should the father
marry, the egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
Biologically, in your exmple, the child still have just two parents. The same
applies where the child is carried by a surrogate.
So you don't regard pregnancy as a biological process? Perhaps you mean genetically? And why do you think that the law in many countries recognises the surrogate's prior parental rights?
On 15/11/2023 13:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote: >>>>
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being >>>>>>>>> displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every
five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some people
who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and borne by the
mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra statements, largely blamed on
God, which turn out to be false generalisations. Not everyone has just two >> parents. Supplementary question for extra points: which one should the father
marry, the egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
Biologically, in your exmple, the child still have just two parents. The same
applies where the child is carried by a surrogate.
But there is research and children, where parts of the egg are replaced by parts
from a donor, to overcome genetic diseases.
https://time.com/5569057/three-parent-baby-dna/
And daddy can marry whomsoever he wants.
On 16/11/2023 11:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Nov 2023 at 10:32:08 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 13:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being >>>>>>>>>>> displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every >>>>>>>>>>> five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some
people
who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and
borne by the
mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra statements, largely
blamed on
God, which turn out to be false generalisations. Not everyone has
just two
parents. Supplementary question for extra points: which one should
the father
marry, the egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
Biologically, in your exmple, the child still have just two parents.
The same
applies where the child is carried by a surrogate.
So you don't regard pregnancy as a biological process? Perhaps you mean
genetically? And why do you think that the law in many countries
recognises
the surrogate's prior parental rights?
A surrogate might actually be the biological parent, while a husband is always the father - even if he isn't, so the surrogate's husband is
legally the father too. Simply, there are two different issues. The
other is DNA based. Pregnancy is a biological process for the person
carrying the baby. It does not in itself confer biological DNA to the
child who may be the result of egg donation.
You might have noticed that many adopted children want to know who their birth parents were, while still calling their adoptive parents mum and
dad. You might have noticed that many adopted children want o know who
their birth parents were, while still calling their adoptive parents mum
and dad.
This part of the discussion arose from the point made that a child has
two parents, not one, and biologically they normally have just two.
Though of course there was a cloned sheep.
That they consider whoever
brings them up to be a parent doesn't change that at all.
On 16/11/2023 12:19, kat wrote:
On 16/11/2023 11:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Nov 2023 at 10:32:08 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 13:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 11:13:58 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/11/2023 10:35 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Nov 2023 at 00:49:14 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 14/11/2023 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"Sara Merriman" <sara@sarlet.com> wrote in message
On 14 Nov 2023 at 10:42:36 GMT, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
And that's without mentioning the obvious insensitivity being >>>>>>>>>>>> displayed towards orphans. As if they need reminding, every >>>>>>>>>>>> five minutes.
I assume this is a joke.
I assumed orphans was written instead of bastards.Well you assumed wrong.
Not everybody has parents;
Simply and obviously untrue.
Everyone has two parents.
At least two parents. Some have three.
Some "one-parent families" do indeed have three or more parents.
Individuals have exactly two parents each, though there are some people >>>>>> who cannot bring themselves to admit the basic truth of that.
What about those with DNA from the donor, DNA from the father and borne by the
mother? People are so fond of these ex-cathedra statements, largely blamed on
God, which turn out to be false generalisations. Not everyone has just two
parents. Supplementary question for extra points: which one should the father
marry, the egg donor or the pregnant woman and why?
Biologically, in your exmple, the child still have just two parents. The same
applies where the child is carried by a surrogate.
So you don't regard pregnancy as a biological process? Perhaps you mean
genetically? And why do you think that the law in many countries recognises >>> the surrogate's prior parental rights?
A surrogate might actually be the biological parent, while a husband is always
the father - even if he isn't, so the surrogate's husband is legally the
father too. Simply, there are two different issues. The other is DNA based.
Pregnancy is a biological process for the person carrying the baby. It does
not in itself confer biological DNA to the child who may be the result of egg
donation.
You might have noticed that many adopted children want to know who their birth
parents were, while still calling their adoptive parents mum and dad. You
might have noticed that many adopted children want o know who their birth
parents were, while still calling their adoptive parents mum and dad.
Can that not be part be explained as curiosity? It can also happen where the mother doesn't know, or won't tell their child(ren).
On 15/11/2023 09:17 pm, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 15/11/2023 17:14, JNugent wrote:
At the risk or repetition, deviation and/or hesitation, I have to ask
again:
What on Earth are you talking about?
In the vast majority of cases a child will have a mother and a father.
In all cases, a child will have a mother and a father.
Without them, there will be no child.
The mother will have produced the egg, got sperm from a man to
fertilise it, and become pregnant.
Whether she lives with the father, or even knows who he is is
irrelevant, as is whether she got the sperm by the normal means or
from a donor.
What is the point in remarking on the quite obvious?
Can I get your book out of the library?
In a minority of cases the woman is unable to produce eggs, or has a
genetic defect making it unwise to use them.
In those cases an egg from another woman is used.
In my book the child then has:
one father
one birth mother
one egg donor mother.
That's three.
What's the ISBN?
On 16/11/2023 00:42, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2023 09:17 pm, Vir Campestris wrote:I was trying to make it simple for you. I thought the facts of egg
On 15/11/2023 17:14, JNugent wrote:
At the risk or repetition, deviation and/or hesitation, I have to
ask again:
What on Earth are you talking about?
In the vast majority of cases a child will have a mother and a father.
In all cases, a child will have a mother and a father.
Without them, there will be no child.
The mother will have produced the egg, got sperm from a man to
fertilise it, and become pregnant.
Whether she lives with the father, or even knows who he is is
irrelevant, as is whether she got the sperm by the normal means or
from a donor.
What is the point in remarking on the quite obvious?
Can I get your book out of the library?
In a minority of cases the woman is unable to produce eggs, or has a
genetic defect making it unwise to use them.
In those cases an egg from another woman is used.
In my book the child then has:
one father
one birth mother
one egg donor mother.
That's three.
What's the ISBN?
donation were pretty well known, but you don't seem to know about it.
There's no book I can refer you to. I have a biology degree, and the
kind of thing I would read won't be suitable for you. You'd be best
asking a school teacher for suggestions.
Andy
On 17/11/2023 01:44 pm, Vir Campestris wrote:
I was trying to make it simple for you. I thought the facts of egg
donation were pretty well known, but you don't seem to know about it.
So you are classifying various people as parents even though not all of
them are.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 52:07:03 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,173 |
| Posted today: | 1 |