((Otherwise Law-Abiding)) Motorists...
View Full Version : ((Otherwise Law-Abiding)) Motorists...
...turn to nothing short of terrorism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3461785.stm
"Speed camera blown up
A £40,000 speed camera was destroyed after it was blasted with a home-made bomb."
--
Rob
In article <40223826$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, "Rob Bruce"=20 <robatanalytical-
dynamicsdotcodotyoukay> says...
> ..turn to nothing short of terrorism.
>=20
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3461785.stm
>=20
> "Speed camera blown up
>=20
> A =A340,000 speed camera was destroyed after it was blasted with a home-made bomb."
>=20
>
Maybe you should be writing for the Sun?
It's not "terrorism" , as no one was terrorised and the object was not to=
=20
create terror but to destroy something.
You have no evidence that these were motorists or that even if they are=20 that they are "Otherwise
Law-Abiding".
A more accurate report would be " Speed camera blown up by unknown=20 persons " but of course that's
less sensational!
You bloody cyclists just don't get it do you? My car is an extension of my penis (which being very
small) needs a bolster. It proclaims to the rest of world 'look at me I'm virile, successful and
macho' even if I'm fat and cannot walk ten metres without pausing for breath, and nothing but
nothing must impede, hamper, diminish or frustrate my delusion.
Speed cameras are an affront to my dignity and pocket and I have a right to go as fast as I
want, whenever I want, and what's more you are all communist bastards!
J. Clarkeson
"marc" <marccdimspamremovedimspamto reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a8c4ff1b25af35998998d@news.demon.co.uk...
>It's not "terrorism" , as no one was terrorised and the object was not to create terror but to
>destroy something.
True. Speeding through villages is terrorism, in that it creates terror, but blowing up devices
designed to deter such behaviour is not.
>You have no evidence that these were motorists or that even if they are that they are "Otherwise
>Law-Abiding".
It would be strange to conclude that they were otherwise law-abiding, since a law-abiding motorist
has no problem with cameras in the first place. It would, however, be very surprising if these were
not motorists.
--
Guy
===
WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
mae <marccdimspamremovedimspamto reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> wedi
ysgrifennu:
> Maybe you should be writing for the Sun?
Heh Heh! It's actually more the style of the D***y M**l to scare the life out of its readers through
wild exaggeration. Anyone know how I can get a job as a sub-ed there? I'm sure it must pay better
than writing glorified spreadsheet macros for the pharmaceuticals industry.
> It's not "terrorism" , as no one was terrorised and the object was not to create terror but to
> destroy something.
I certainly find it more worrying that these idiots have moved on from hacksaws and angle-grinders
to explosives. They are trying to make a socio-political point through violence. That's pretty close
to terrorism in my book.
> You have no evidence that these were motorists or that even if they are that they are "Otherwise
> Law-Abiding".
Who do you think was responsible then? Was it a schoolboy prank that got out of hand? High jinks by
the local rugby club? Young Farmers fundraising stunt?
> A more accurate report would be " Speed camera blown up by unknown persons " but of course that's
> less sensational!
And less fun. Valid point, though.
--
Rob
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:13:23 -0000, "nobody760"
<nobody760@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> You bloody cyclists just don't get it do you? My car is an extension of my penis (which
> being very small) needs a bolster.
And if it were very large it would need a holster.
--
Dave...
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. Mark Twain
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:35:22 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote:
>It would be strange to conclude that they were otherwise law-abiding, since a law-abiding motorist
>has no problem with cameras in the first place. It would, however, be very surprising if these were
>not motorists.
It's militant cyclists trying to smear the reputation of innocent motorists.
--
Dave...
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. Mark Twain
nobody760 wrote:
> You bloody cyclists just don't get it do you? My car is an extension of my penis (which
> being very small) needs a bolster.
Eye watering mental images of a brick cutting chisel being used
Tony
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 08:55:19 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<junk@raven-family.com> wrote:
>nobody760 wrote:
>> You bloody cyclists just don't get it do you? My car is an extension of my penis (which
>> being very small) needs a bolster.
>
>Eye watering mental images of a brick cutting chisel being used
You did say "brick" Tony?
--
Dave...
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. Mark Twain
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:05:28 -0000, marc <marccdimspamremovedimspamto
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:)Maybe you should be writing for the Sun? ) )It's not "terrorism" , as no one was terrorised and
:the object was not to= )=20 )create terror but to destroy something. ) )You have no evidence that
:these were motorists or that even if they are=20 )that they are "Otherwise Law-Abiding". ) )A more
:accurate report would be " Speed camera blown up by unknown=20 )persons " but of course that's less
:sensational!
I think, Marc, it was blown up by a bomb, not a person :)
--
Comm again, Mike.
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 08:55:19 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<junk@raven-family.com> wrote:
:)nobody760 wrote: )> You bloody cyclists just don't get it do you? My car is an extension )> of my
:penis (which being very small) needs a bolster. ) )Eye watering mental images of a brick cutting
:chisel being used )
Put the barbie on !
--
Comm again, Mike.
marc <marccdimspamremovedimspamto reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a8c4ff1b25af35998998d@news.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <40223826$1 1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, "Rob Bruce" <robatanalytical-
> dynamicsdotcodotyoukay> says...
> > ..turn to nothing short of terrorism.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3461785.stm
> >
> > "Speed camera blown up
> >
> > A 40,000 speed camera was destroyed after it was blasted with a home-made bomb."
> >
> >
> Maybe you should be writing for the Sun?
>
> It's not "terrorism" , as no one was terrorised and the object was not to
>
> create terror but to destroy something.
>
Blowing public property up with explosives with the intention of preventing laws being enforced
sounds like terrorism to me. I,m fairly sure anyone who had driven past at the time of the explosion
would have been terrified. Iain
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:05:28 -0000 someone who may be marc
<marccdimspamremovedimspamto reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> wrote
this:-
>It's not "terrorism" , as no one was terrorised and the object was not to create terror but to
>destroy something.
I take it that you are not familiar with the Terrorism Act 2000.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
In article <4029397b.22761830@news.swinternet.net>, pmailkeey wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:05:28 -0000, marc <marccdimspamremovedimspamto
>reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>:)Maybe you should be writing for the Sun? ) )It's not "terrorism" , as no one was terrorised and
>:the object was not to= )=20 )create terror but to destroy something. ) )You have no evidence that
>:these were motorists or that even if they are=20 )that they are "Otherwise Law-Abiding". ) )A more
>:accurate report would be " Speed camera blown up by unknown=20 )persons " but of course that's
>:less sensational!
>
>I think, Marc, it was blown up by a bomb, not a person :)
"Bombs don't kill speed cameras, people kill speed cameras" ?
David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> writes:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:05:28 -0000 someone who may be marc <marccdimspamremovedimspamto
> reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
> >It's not "terrorism" , as no one was terrorised and the object was not to create terror but to
> >destroy something.
>
> I take it that you are not familiar with the Terrorism Act 2000.
It doesn't matter what the Terrorism Act says. Politicians choose names for their anti-libertarian
legislation which are designed to play on people's fears, and the 'Terrorism Act' is not primarily
about terrorism, it's about keeping the civilian population under control. Terrorism is the
systematic use of violence with the intention of creating fear in a civilian population. Blowing up
cameras, however reprehensible it may be (and I agree that it is extremely reprehensible) does not
create terror and is thus not terrorism, whatever Messrs Blair, Straw and Blunkett may pretend.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Originally posted by Nobody760
You bloody cyclists just don't get it do you? My car is an extension of my penis (which being very
small) needs a bolster. It proclaims to the rest of world 'look at me I'm virile, successful and
macho' even if I'm fat and cannot walk ten metres without pausing for breath, and nothing but
nothing must impede, hamper, diminish or frustrate my delusion.
Speed cameras are an affront to my dignity and pocket and I have a right to go as fast as I
want, whenever I want, and what's more you are all communist bastards!
J. Clarkeson
I bet if someone stole your car,blew your penis off with a bomb and caught it all on a speed camera that it probably would be terrorism. Then again! If I understand what you are saying maybe it would only take a fire cracker. That kills my theory!
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:05:15 GMT someone who may be Simon Brooke
<simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote this:-
>It doesn't matter what the Terrorism Act says.
Sadly it does matter.
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--b.htm#1
>1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
> (a) the action falls within subsection (2),
Which it does.
> (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a
> section of the public, and
Ditto.
> (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological
> cause.
Ditto.
>(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
>(a) involves serious violence against a person,
No.
> (b) involves serious damage to property,
Yes.
> (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
Yes.
> (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
Yes.
> (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
Possibly, if the camera is digital.
The madness of Messers Liar, Straw and Mastermind is noted, but they have convinced the rogues in
the Westminster nursing home for people of an odd disposition to pass "laws" like this and one has
to either object to these or be complicit.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
"Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87bro4fogc.fsf@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> writes:
>
>
> It doesn't matter what the Terrorism Act says. Politicians choose names for their anti-libertarian
> legislation which are designed to play on people's fears, and the 'Terrorism Act' is not primarily
> about terrorism, it's about keeping the civilian population under control. Terrorism is the
> systematic use of violence with the intention of creating fear in a civilian population. Blowing
> up cameras, however reprehensible it may be (and I agree that it is extremely reprehensible) does
> not create terror and is thus not terrorism, whatever Messrs Blair, Straw and Blunkett may
> pretend.
So all those people in cars who terrorise me are terrorists? Thanks for the info.
>
> --
> simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> ;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
