Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within
uk.rec.driving, 'Gawnsoft' wrote:

>>I take that to be a comment on the sheer scale of council
>>controlled spurious holdups.
>
>You consider child protection spurious?

Hardly. Big difference between speedbumbs and warning lines
near a school and 4 or 5 pointless painted roundabouts along
a busy inroad to a city.
--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within uk.rec.driving,
'JNugent' wrote:

>> ... a driver going at the speed limit is obstructing
>> nobody.
>
>I bet you wouldn't stick out on the crown of the road at an
>indicated 30 if there was a police car, ambulance or fire
>appliance behind you giving you blues'n'twos.

The only difficult bit there is to work out if it's an
ambulance, fire engine or police car. In the case of the
last, I prefer to behave like the rest of the country
behaves toward me. Trundle.. This is MY road trundle
trundle trundle..

Given the ratio of petty obstructive laws to those that are
worthy of respect, the odds are huge that by doing so I am a
benefit to the community.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected],
Dave J <[email protected]> typed:
> In MsgID<[email protected]> within
> uk.rec.driving, 'JNugent' wrote:
>
>>> ... a driver going at the speed limit is obstructing
>>> nobody.
>>
>> I bet you wouldn't stick out on the crown of the road at
>> an indicated 30 if there was a police car, ambulance or
>> fire appliance behind you giving you blues'n'twos.
>
> The only difficult bit there is to work out if it's an
> ambulance, fire engine or police car. In the case of the
> last, I prefer to behave like the rest of the country
> behaves toward me. Trundle.. This is MY road trundle
> trundle trundle..
>
> Given the ratio of petty obstructive laws to those that
> are worthy of respect, the odds are huge that by doing so
> I am a benefit to the community.

And obviously police cars are rushing to enforce petty laws,
like armed robberies, burglaries where the burglar's still
present, robberies where the thief is still close by, etc.

Or maybe even chasing some who's not paid their TV licence.

A

 

[Brimstone]

Dave J wrote:
> In MsgID<1ge2227.5kn1y61pmlyvxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> within uk.rec.driving, 'Steve Firth' wrote:
>
>> And I for one woudl uphold their right to protest
>> peacefully even if that protest means some inconvenience
>> for the public and the breaking of a law or two.
>
> Especially since there ought to be *no* laws against
> peaceful protest.

There aren't any laws agains *peaceful* protest.

 

[David Martin]

On 20/5/04 11:42 am, in article [email protected],
"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dave J wrote:
>> In MsgID<1ge2227.5kn1y61pmlyvxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>> within uk.rec.driving, 'Steve Firth' wrote:
>>
>>> And I for one woudl uphold their right to protest
>>> peacefully even if that protest means some inconvenience
>>> for the public and the breaking of a law or two.
>>
>> Especially since there ought to be *no* laws against
>> peaceful protest.
>
> There aren't any laws agains *peaceful* protest.

unless you mean 'non-violent' by peaceful instead of 'have
no significant impact on anyone else'. Obviously I could sit
in front of a shop with 400 other people protesting about
that shop and effectively prevent it from doing business.
Perfectly peaceful (non-violent) but probably illegal.

..d

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within uk.rec.driving, 'Ambrose
Nankivell' wrote:

>> Given the ratio of petty obstructive laws to those that
>> are worthy of respect, the odds are huge that by doing so
>> I am a benefit to the community.
>
>And obviously police cars are rushing to enforce petty
>laws, like armed robberies,

Armed roberry very rare.

>burglaries where the burglar's still present,

I've heard of a good few cases the case has been categorised
as a 'normal' burglary even though the caller has stated
that the criminal was still on the premises and response has
only happened several hours later.

>robberies where the thief is still close by, etc.

>Or maybe even chasing some who's not paid their TV licence.

But most likely of all they're chasing someone without a tax
disk, someone they think might have a crumb of pot, someone
whose rear light is broken, someone who did forty through a
thirty zone or any number of petty things where the
'culprit' has thought 'stuff them I'll soon get rid'

So, while it could be the one in a thousand chase of someone
worthy of the effort, the odds are strongly in favour of it
just being about enjoyment of the excuse to exert some power
and race their car about the place.

The odds are also therefore strongly in favour of this being
one socialy favourable time to follow the numbskull 'pro-
obstructivity' advice.

Just look upon it as the prevention of an accident..

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within uk.rec.driving,
'Brimstone' wrote:

>Dave J wrote:
>> In MsgID<1ge2227.5kn1y61pmlyvxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>> within uk.rec.driving, 'Steve Firth' wrote:
>>
>>> And I for one woudl uphold their right to protest
>>> peacefully even if that protest means some inconvenience
>>> for the public and the breaking of a law or two.
>>
>> Especially since there ought to be *no* laws against
>> peaceful protest.
>
>There aren't any laws agains *peaceful* protest.

Have a read of the Criminal 'Justice' Act sometime.
--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected],
Dave J <[email protected]> typed:
> In MsgID<[email protected]> within
> uk.rec.driving, 'Ambrose Nankivell' wrote:
>
>>> Given the ratio of petty obstructive laws to those that
>>> are worthy of respect, the odds are huge that by doing
>>> so I am a benefit to the community.
>>
>> And obviously police cars are rushing to enforce petty
>> laws, like armed robberies,
>
> Armed roberry very rare.

Sadly common enough that when I was giving a statement
having been burgled, the police had to rush off half way
through to cover one.

> But most likely of all they're chasing someone without a
> tax disk, someone they think might have a crumb of pot,
> someone whose rear light is broken, someone who did forty
> through a thirty zone or any number of petty things where
> the 'culprit' has thought 'stuff them I'll soon get rid'

Yeah, right.

> The odds are also therefore strongly in favour of this
> being one socialy favourable time to follow the numbskull
> 'pro-obstructivity' advice.

No one else is advising obstructing, just some people are
saying that they don't have to get out of the way if they're
being intimidated.

A

 

[Brimstone]

David Martin wrote:
> On 20/5/04 11:42 am, in article
> [email protected], "Brimstone"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dave J wrote:
>>> In MsgID<1ge2227.5kn1y61pmlyvxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>>> within uk.rec.driving, 'Steve Firth' wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I for one woudl uphold their right to protest
>>>> peacefully even if that protest means some
>>>> inconvenience for the public and the breaking of a law
>>>> or two.
>>>
>>> Especially since there ought to be *no* laws against
>>> peaceful protest.
>>
>> There aren't any laws agains *peaceful* protest.
>
> unless you mean 'non-violent' by peaceful instead of 'have
> no significant impact on anyone else'. Obviously I could
> sit in front of a shop with 400 other people protesting
> about that shop and effectively prevent it from doing
> business. Perfectly peaceful (non-violent) but probably
> illegal.
>

It's illegal to cause an obstruction, yes.

 

[Steve Firth]

Conor <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <1ge2227.5kn1y61pmlyvxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
> usenet- [email protected] says...
> > Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <1ge1gkl.hb17cm1twb13sN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-
> > > [email protected] says...
> > >
> > > > It's stupid to obey laws for the sake of obeying
> > > > laws.
> > > >
> > > As long as you're happy accepting the
> > > fines/points/criminal record.
> >
> > If that is the price of protest then that is how it must
> > be. I'm sure that the truckers who committed a crime by
> > obstructing the flow of traffic on roads throughout
> > Britain thought it was worth the possibility of
> > fines/points/criminal record to make their point, for
> > example.
>
> Completely different

Completely different as in "exactly the same thing" you
mean?

> and not applicable to daily life though isn't it?

Why not? If we do not stand up against tyrants in our daily
life then we have not protested at all.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need
help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to:
uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free
environment.

 

[Brimstone]

Dave J wrote:
> In MsgID<[email protected]> within
> uk.rec.driving, 'Brimstone' wrote:
>
>> Dave J wrote:
>>> In MsgID<1ge2227.5kn1y61pmlyvxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>>> within uk.rec.driving, 'Steve Firth' wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I for one woudl uphold their right to protest
>>>> peacefully even if that protest means some
>>>> inconvenience for the public and the breaking of a law
>>>> or two.
>>>
>>> Especially since there ought to be *no* laws against
>>> peaceful protest.
>>
>> There aren't any laws agains *peaceful* protest.
>
> Have a read of the Criminal 'Justice' Act sometime.

What for?

 

[Brimstone]

Dave J wrote:
> In MsgID<[email protected]> within
> uk.rec.driving, 'Brimstone' wrote:
>
>> Dave J wrote:
>>> In MsgID<1ge2227.5kn1y61pmlyvxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>>> within uk.rec.driving, 'Steve Firth' wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I for one woudl uphold their right to protest
>>>> peacefully even if that protest means some
>>>> inconvenience for the public and the breaking of a law
>>>> or two.
>>>
>>> Especially since there ought to be *no* laws against
>>> peaceful protest.
>>
>> There aren't any laws agains *peaceful* protest.
>
> Have a read of the Criminal 'Justice' Act sometime.

What for?

 

[Brimstone]

Dave J wrote:
> In MsgID<[email protected]> within
> uk.rec.driving, 'Brimstone' wrote:
>
>>>> There aren't any laws agains *peaceful* protest.
>>>
>>> Have a read of the Criminal 'Justice' Act sometime.
>>
>> What for?
>>
>
> I think this is the relevant part.
>
> Sections 70 & 71: Trespassory Assemblies
>
> As an amendment to the Public Order Act of 1986, this part
> allows the police to apply to the local authority (or, in
> London, the Home Secretary) to prohibit 'trespassory
> assemblies' of 20+ people for up to 4 days with a 5-mile
> exclusion zone, as long as there is a risk of 'serious
> disruption to the local community', or of 'significant
> damage' to the land or buildings/ monuments on it which
> may have historical/ archaeological/ scientific
> importance.

Which is not a law against peacful protest, although I
accept it could be used as such if that event were intended
to take place on private property.

 

[Brimstone]

Dave J wrote:
> In MsgID<[email protected]> within
> uk.rec.driving, 'Brimstone' wrote:
>
>>>> There aren't any laws agains *peaceful* protest.
>>>
>>> Have a read of the Criminal 'Justice' Act sometime.
>>
>> What for?
>>
>
> I think this is the relevant part.
>
> Sections 70 & 71: Trespassory Assemblies
>
> As an amendment to the Public Order Act of 1986, this part
> allows the police to apply to the local authority (or, in
> London, the Home Secretary) to prohibit 'trespassory
> assemblies' of 20+ people for up to 4 days with a 5-mile
> exclusion zone, as long as there is a risk of 'serious
> disruption to the local community', or of 'significant
> damage' to the land or buildings/ monuments on it which
> may have historical/ archaeological/ scientific
> importance.

Which is not a law against peacful protest, although I
accept it could be used as such if that event were intended
to take place on private property.

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Thu, 20 May 2004 09:32:00 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
(more or less):

>In MsgID<[email protected]> within
>uk.rec.driving, 'Gawnsoft' wrote:
>
>>>I take that to be a comment on the sheer scale of council
>>>controlled spurious holdups.
>>
>>You consider child protection spurious?
>
>Hardly. Big difference between speedbumbs and warning lines
>near a school and 4 or 5 pointless painted roundabouts
>along a busy inroad to a city.

From your point of view this might be an unfortunate fact,
but it's a fact.

Along roads into city's, children can be found at places
other than schools.

(As can other vulnerable road-users.)

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Thu, 20 May 2004 09:32:00 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
(more or less):

>In MsgID<[email protected]> within
>uk.rec.driving, 'Gawnsoft' wrote:
>
>>>I take that to be a comment on the sheer scale of council
>>>controlled spurious holdups.
>>
>>You consider child protection spurious?
>
>Hardly. Big difference between speedbumbs and warning lines
>near a school and 4 or 5 pointless painted roundabouts
>along a busy inroad to a city.

From your point of view this might be an unfortunate fact,
but it's a fact.

Along roads into city's, children can be found at places
other than schools.

(As can other vulnerable road-users.)

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within uk.rec.driving,
'Brimstone' wrote:

>Which is not a law against peacful protest, although I
>accept it could be used as such if that event were intended
>to take place on private property.

Try organising a peacful anti-war rally of a couple of
hundred people in the town centre and see how far you get
without pleading for permission from the local pigpen.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]