Radars – Ridicule does not kill interior ministers –

Posted on by admin

Ridicule does not kill interior ministers

Radars - Ridicule does not kill interior ministers -

After long years of investigation, Site is able to reveal a scoop that risks changing the face of the world: ridicule does not kill interior ministers. Unless we have, in the meantime, announced the sudden death of Nicolas Sarkozy.

Exclusive. Huge. Abracadabrantesque. Next to the scoop that Moto-Net is able to publish tonight, the announcement that Rossi would sign for ten seasons in a row with Lada would look like a cat pee.

Supporting evidence, we are indeed able to provide a definitive answer to the question that torments the greatest thinkers that the earth has known since man was able to question himself, by Jean-Pierre Foucault to Roselyne Bachelot via Florent Pagny and Jean-Claude Van Damme: ridicule does not kill interior ministers! Demonstration.

Facts
As they make their way to the inauguration of the first automatic radar (read), the ministers of the interior and transport are caught in their own trap by nasty Auto Plus journalists equipped with laser binoculars (to be released tomorrow ). Race report: 103 km / h instead of 70 for Nicolas Sarkozy and 98 instead of 70 for Gilles de Robien.

Analysis
However fun it may be, the experience is not, however, particularly surprising: which, today in France, drives at 70 km / h on a straight two-lane, very clear, with nickel coating and separate by a central wall (), what is more in a powerful car, brand new and equipped with all the latest modern technologies (Peugeot 607)? Nobody. Not even the Minister of the Interior and "local freedoms" (sic), that is to say !

But there is worse. In his defense, Nicolas Sarkozy publishes a press release which shows in a particularly illuminating way how absurd a road safety policy based on the blind repression of speed is.

Text explanation
When you, reader, get pulled over for speeding, your first instinct is to say – if you are "lucky" to find a cop to hear you! – that you were in a hurry and that your speed was not excessive given the circumstances. Well Sarkozy, him, all the same: "the threats due to my function require that occasionally, certain special security measures be taken". Understood: I had the FLNC in my ass, I had to trace to get to La Ville-du-Bois entirely. Or variant "Salary of fear": the Jamaa Islamiya had trapped my car, below 100 km / h everything jumped !

But the minister continues: "Under these circumstances, my vehicle moves in a secure environment, preceded by two bikers from the national police who set the pace of the procession". Understood: it’s not me, it’s them! Except that when you, reader, you decide to "fix the pace" of your procession, it does not matter whether the environment is secure or not: in short, it does not matter whether your road is clear or congested, whether the coating is nickel or rotten, whether the visibility is optimal or night is falling, whether you are driving in the open countryside or near a school: the limit is the limit !

And Sarko continues: "Moreover, the intersections of the route are the subject of special surveillance and, in this case, were neutralized." Ah! A bit like you, reader, when you approach an intersection while respecting the right-of-way priority (special surveillance) or stopping at the traffic light (intersection neutralized). It’s all about the language…

In short, concludes the minister, "my trip was therefore carried out in accordance with safety rules". Exactly like you, reader, when you adapt your speed according to the circumstances and not according to the signs … Except that you, reader, you are not minister! Well, not all…

By publishing this argument based on the fact that a speed adapted to the circumstances is not dangerous in itself, even if it represents an excess of speed compared to a sign, Sarkozy almost recognizes that it would be necessary to distinguish between excess of speed and excessive speed. Which, with the proliferation of automatic speed cameras, is however quite simply excluded…

Balance sheet
But there is – even – worse. By asking the good people to blindly respect limitations so aberrant that even they do not respect them, under the pretext that it is "good for security" – a bit like ten years ago we passed everything and anything provided that it is "good for the job", with the brilliant results which one knows -, the government does not cover itself only with ridicule. He himself conscientiously – and consciously – saws the branch on which he sits, gleefully trampling on notions of state, law, public community, community life and, ultimately, democracy..

A bit like when the first of them, the infamous Gringo du Haut-Poitou, pretends to forget that public money is precisely that which belongs to everyone and which should benefit everyone, declaring without batting an eyelid that "the state must stop stealing money from the pocket of the French"…

In summary, the real problem may not be that two ministers exceed an aberrant speed limit, but rather that the issue of individual responsibility for choosing a speed appropriate to the circumstances is never clearly addressed..

Because by dint of discrediting the law, the community, the public good and the rules of life in society, by voting for texts so far removed from reality that even their authors do not ask themselves whether they should be respected – or , when they are caught hand in the bag, manage perfectly to justify their non-respect – it is democracy itself which is in the crosshairs of power. However, since a certain April 21 of sinister memory, we know perfectly well where it leads…

Eric MICHEL

Related articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *