Cycling doctor gets death threats after posting videos of crapdriving on Youtube.

[spindrift]

HELMET-CAM-DOCTOR-CYCLIST GETS DEATH THREATS AFTER FILMING ERRANT
DRIVERS:

http://tinyurl.com/2v4vtu

Caps lock headline speak frenzy!


There's a forum fro bus drivers called "Bloodbus", no, really, whose
members have been issuing threats to Magnatom.

The word "Vigilante" is entirely the wrong word in that article, are
CCTVs in banks "vigilantes"?

 

[LSMike]

On 26 Mar, 08:39, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> HELMET-CAM-DOCTOR-CYCLIST GETS DEATH THREATS AFTER FILMING ERRANT
> DRIVERS:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2v4vtu
>
> Caps lock headline speak frenzy!
>
> There's a forum fro bus drivers called "Bloodbus", no, really, whose
> members have been issuing threats to Magnatom.
>
> The word "Vigilante" is entirely the wrong word in that article, are
> CCTVs in banks "vigilantes"?

If you thought uk.tosspot was bad, bloodbus and strathclydecruisers
are eyeopeners of note! To me they look like a bunch of schoolyard
bullies who don't like the consequences of their actions brought home
to them.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <a0334884-326d-42d2-a282-f3d829d99c73
@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, spindrift
[email protected] says...
> HELMET-CAM-DOCTOR-CYCLIST GETS DEATH THREATS AFTER FILMING ERRANT
> DRIVERS:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2v4vtu
>
> Caps lock headline speak frenzy!
>
>
> There's a forum fro bus drivers called "Bloodbus", no, really, whose
> members have been issuing threats to Magnatom.
>
> The word "Vigilante" is entirely the wrong word in that article, are
> CCTVs in banks "vigilantes"?
>
//
(Police) said: "We would advise anyone who feels their safety on the
road has been compromised to contact the police in the first instance."
//
When they will, of course, do nothing about it.

"Police warned against anyone taking the the law into their own hands."
So people shooting video in a public place and posting it on the web is
"taking the law into their own hands", apparently, rather than creating
amateur documentary.

 

[Mark T]

Rob Morley writtificated

> "Police warned against anyone taking the the law into their own hands."
> So people shooting video in a public place and posting it on the web is
> "taking the law into their own hands", apparently,

Heh, the usual poor standard of reporting.

 

[Graham Harrison]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a0334884-326d-42d2-a282-f3d829d99c73@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> HELMET-CAM-DOCTOR-CYCLIST GETS DEATH THREATS AFTER FILMING ERRANT
> DRIVERS:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2v4vtu
>
> Caps lock headline speak frenzy!
>
>
> There's a forum fro bus drivers called "Bloodbus", no, really, whose
> members have been issuing threats to Magnatom.
>
> The word "Vigilante" is entirely the wrong word in that article, are
> CCTVs in banks "vigilantes"?

I have no compunction in saying that the driving shown in the videos I have
viewed leaves something to be desired (to say the least). I thought I
could get aggressive in such circumstances but I'm a paragon of virtute
compared to the good doctor. I think maybe the time has come for him to
engage with the police, using his existing tapes not as evidence but to say
"here is what I can record how should we (note the we, not I) progress to
resolve the issues I am recording. If they won't engage I think he should
then go back to STV and see if they're interested in the "Police won't ...."
story.

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:07:12 -0000 someone who may be Rob Morley
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>(Police) said: "We would advise anyone who feels their safety on the
>road has been compromised to contact the police in the first instance."
>//
>When they will, of course, do nothing about it.

Indeed.

>"Police warned against anyone taking the the law into their own hands."
>
>So people shooting video in a public place and posting it on the web is
>"taking the law into their own hands", apparently, rather than creating
>amateur documentary.

The police appear to be so arrogant that they think they can take
photographs of anyone at any time they want. However, if a plebe
does the same thing they get upset. The result is a highly political
dispute between those who are supposed to assist the public in
protecting themselves and the public protecting themselves, one of
the manifestations of which is <http://www.fitwatch.blogspot.com>




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[spindrift]

On 26 Mar, 12:50, David Hansen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:07:12 -0000 someone who may be Rob Morley
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >(Police) said: "We would advise anyone who feels their safety on the
> >road has been compromised to contact the police in the first instance."
> >//
> >When they will, of course, do nothing about it.
>
> Indeed.
>
> >"Police warned against anyone taking the the law into their own hands."
>
> >So people shooting video in a public place and posting it on the web is
> >"taking the law into their own hands", apparently, rather than creating
> >amateur documentary.
>
> The police appear to be so arrogant that they think they can take
> photographs of anyone at any time they want. However, if a plebe
> does the same thing they get upset. The result is a highly political
> dispute between those who are supposed to assist the public in
> protecting themselves and the public protecting themselves, one of
> the manifestations of which is <http://www.fitwatch.blogspot.com>
>
> --
>   David Hansen, Edinburgh
>  I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
>  http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

What was the case in Cambridge where a cyclist was deliberately rammed
and trusted the police to investigate?

The cops did nothing, natch.

Went to the IPCC, IIRC.

 

[Ian Jackson]

In article <edbef349-e22b-42ad-a051-200736479b7e@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>What was the case in Cambridge where a cyclist was deliberately rammed
>and trusted the police to investigate?

You're probably thinking of my incident with a taxi in December 2006.
The most recent summary I've posted here was yesterday, in this article:
<u3i*[email protected]>

I don't think the collision was deliberate in the sense that you put
it. The taxi driver intended only to intimidate, but misjudged.

But, yes, the police have been useless. After that incident I got
cameras for my bike but the police aren't interested in prosecuting
even with video evidence. See for example
`KN51 TXU pulls out forcing me to swerve and brake' at
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <[email protected]>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

 

[Richard Fairhurst]

On Mar 26, 12:39 pm, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Heh, the usual poor standard of reporting.

Mein Gott. I usually get hacked off with comments like "it's a
newspaper/TV/magazine/whatever, they _always_ get everything
wrong" (so stop reading it, they'll get the message), but the closing
comment is beyond belief:

"As well as speed cameras, road users now have the cycling two wheeled
cameraman to look out for."

THAT'S ENTIRELY THE BLOODY POINT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING OUT FOR
HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU FECKING MUPPETS

splutter.

Richard

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <d342689b-60cd-4ab2-877d-
[email protected]>, Richard Fairhurst
[email protected] says...
> On Mar 26, 12:39 pm, Mark T
> <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> > Heh, the usual poor standard of reporting.
>
> Mein Gott. I usually get hacked off with comments like "it's a
> newspaper/TV/magazine/whatever, they _always_ get everything
> wrong" (so stop reading it, they'll get the message), but the closing
> comment is beyond belief:
>
> "As well as speed cameras, road users now have the cycling two wheeled
> cameraman to look out for."
>
> THAT'S ENTIRELY THE BLOODY POINT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING OUT FOR
> HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU FECKING MUPPETS
>
Sad, innit? It suggests that we'd all be safer if we were to wear
plastic hats with dummy cameras fitted.

 

[POHB]

On 26 Mar, 13:50, Ian Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
> But, yes, the police have been useless.  After that incident I got
> cameras for my bike but the police aren't interested in prosecuting
> even with video evidence.  See for example
>  `KN51 TXU pulls out forcing me to swerve and brake' at
>  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/

Weren't they even interested in prosecuting the two cyclists clearly
seen cycling across the Zebra crossing in that video?

 

[Roger Merriman]

Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <a0334884-326d-42d2-a282-f3d829d99c73
> @p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, spindrift
> [email protected] says...
> > HELMET-CAM-DOCTOR-CYCLIST GETS DEATH THREATS AFTER FILMING ERRANT
> > DRIVERS:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/2v4vtu
> >
> > Caps lock headline speak frenzy!
> >
> >
> > There's a forum fro bus drivers called "Bloodbus", no, really, whose
> > members have been issuing threats to Magnatom.
> >
> > The word "Vigilante" is entirely the wrong word in that article, are
> > CCTVs in banks "vigilantes"?
> >
> //
> (Police) said: "We would advise anyone who feels their safety on the
> road has been compromised to contact the police in the first instance."
> //
> When they will, of course, do nothing about it.
>
> "Police warned against anyone taking the the law into their own hands."
> So people shooting video in a public place and posting it on the web is
> "taking the law into their own hands", apparently, rather than creating
> amateur documentary.

reading/watching this i get the feeling they think he's a idiot/funny.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Paul George]

On 26 Mar, 15:17, POHB <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Weren't they even interested in prosecuting the two cyclists clearly
> seen cycling across the Zebra crossing in that video?


Whilst I in no way condone such behaviour I do not think
it is actually illegal. In the HC it is a Do Not rather than a
Must Not.

 

[PK]

"Paul George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1d101af7-74b4-4c06-8c5d-801245be93eb@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Mar, 15:17, POHB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Weren't they even interested in prosecuting the two cyclists clearly
>> seen cycling across the Zebra crossing in that video?
>
>
> Whilst I in no way condone such behaviour I do not think
> it is actually illegal. In the HC it is a Do Not rather than a
> Must Not.


but cycling on the pavement is a MUST NOT, they were therefore illegal at
the start and end of the crossing!!

pk

 

[Paul George]

On 26 Mar, 16:16, "PK" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> but cycling on the pavement is a MUST NOT, they were therefore illegal at
> the start and end of the crossing!!
>
There is no evidence of pavement cycling in the video.

 

[PK]

"Paul George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b521296f-e51a-4f62-ac11-50557e4ccf92@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Mar, 16:16, "PK" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> but cycling on the pavement is a MUST NOT, they were therefore illegal at
>> the start and end of the crossing!!
>>
> There is no evidence of pavement cycling in the video.
>
>



you mean they walked their bikes to the edge of the pavement, got on, rode
across the crossing and then got off again before mounting the pavement. Of
course! my mistake! I apologise for my error!

pk

 

[Paul George]

On 26 Mar, 16:29, "PK" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> you mean they walked their bikes to the edge of the pavement, got on, rode
> across the crossing and then got off again before mounting the pavement. Of
> course! my mistake! I apologise for my error!
>

I have no idea, neither do you.
The question was why did the police not use this video evidence to
prosecute the cyclists. The answer is because that video contains
no evidence of lawbreaking by the cyclists.

 

[PK]

"Paul George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:895b5748-a5ed-405d-9778-4e7f115b0138@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Mar, 16:29, "PK" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> you mean they walked their bikes to the edge of the pavement, got on,
>> rode
>> across the crossing and then got off again before mounting the pavement.
>> Of
>> course! my mistake! I apologise for my error!
>>
>
> I have no idea, neither do you.
> The question was why did the police not use this video evidence to
> prosecute the cyclists. The answer is because that video contains
> no evidence of lawbreaking by the cyclists.


Bollocks and you know it!

pk

 

[naked_draughtsman]

On Mar 26, 4:16 pm, "PK" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Paul George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:1d101af7-74b4-4c06-8c5d-801245be93eb@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 26 Mar, 15:17, POHB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Weren't they even interested in prosecuting the two cyclists clearly
> >> seen cycling across the Zebra crossing in that video?
>
> > Whilst I in no way condone such behaviour I do not think
> > it is actually illegal. In the HC it is a Do Not rather than a
> > Must Not.
>
> but cycling on the pavement is a MUST NOT, they were therefore illegal at
> the start and end of the crossing!!

What a wonderfully joined up legal system we have. I thought that the
"parking on a pavement is ok, but driving on a pavement is not" was a
one off anomaly!

peter

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, PK
[email protected] says...
> "Paul George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:895b5748-a5ed-405d-9778-4e7f115b0138@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On 26 Mar, 16:29, "PK" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> you mean they walked their bikes to the edge of the pavement, got on,
> >> rode
> >> across the crossing and then got off again before mounting the pavement.
> >> Of
> >> course! my mistake! I apologise for my error!
> >>
> >
> > I have no idea, neither do you.
> > The question was why did the police not use this video evidence to
> > prosecute the cyclists. The answer is because that video contains
> > no evidence of lawbreaking by the cyclists.
>
>
> Bollocks and you know it!
>
Hey, mister mind reader, what am I thinking?