From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: UK Nanny State. Making Britain safe from freedom, on ban at atime
Full headers:
From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: UK Nanny State. Making Britain safe from freedom, on ban at a
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 05:00:53 +0100
Organization: the center
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: jgCbbWUEiY0y08MaOKQD1gDvhfhH/H/SMyYKJli1k4yzlnDl+y
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VO25BaObPNStvXGnTfHvaGXVbtU=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Language: en-US
Print Article
Forward Article
On  2017-11-27 23:08, Savageduck wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2017, RichA wrote
> (in article<>):
>> On Monday, 27 November 2017 00:11:19 UTC-5, android wrote:
>>> On 2017-11-27 00:15, RichA wrote:
>>>> Sure, it's ok to blanket a country with 500,000 CCTV cameras, ensuring no
>>>> one will ever have any kind of privacy again except locked in their
>>>> bedrooms with no windows, but fly a drone above 400ft? BAN IT!!
>>> They better have their devices turned off and left in another room too.
>>> Anyways, they have chosen to go their own way now outside the union...
>>> But you being one of HM subjects do have a vested interest, of course! :-))
>>> Privately flied drones are both invasion of privacy and safety, no doubt...
>> Progress entails risk. The "not in my backyard" types should be relegated to
>> Luddism they deserve, they should go live in caves somewhere.
>> cers-ground-and-seize-drones
> ...and then we have this:
> <
> leaflets-over-12385138.php>

Ain't that violating some amendment???
> <
> with-their-work-one-pilot-arrested>
So the flying of drones conflicted with saving children from buildings 
on fire? Drones are soo coool...
teleportation kills