I think the pro-speeders have *really* done it now ;)



Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mr [email protected] \ -Lsqco

Guest
check this out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2726571.stm

IMO a *real* own goal for the pro-speeders. Whilst society may not as yet be heavy enough on drivers
who injure or kill, there are certainly heavy penalties for damaging *property*. Especially blowing
up Government Property with IEDs (improvised explosive devices)!

Hopefully a few of these speed freaks are going to be dragged out of their homes at 6:30 with cable
ties round their wrists and loaded H&K MP5s pointed at their heads. They might start getting the
message then!

Alex
 
R

Richard Goodman

Guest
Mr [email protected] (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room new build] wrote:
> check this out.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2726571.stm
>
> IMO a *real* own goal for the pro-speeders. Whilst society may not as yet be heavy enough on
> drivers who injure or kill, there are certainly heavy penalties for damaging *property*.
> Especially blowing up Government Property with IEDs (improvised explosive devices)!
>

Oh I don't know. I can't see that the whole pro-speeder lobby is likely to be affected by any
penalties those who did this will get, if they're caught. If it wasn't for the potential seriousness
of the consequences to any passersby, had there been any, it would almost be amusing. I suspect
there'll be a rousing cheer in the anti-camera lobby.

> Hopefully a few of these speed freaks are going to be dragged out of their homes at 6:30 with
> cable ties round their wrists and loaded H&K MP5s pointed at their heads. They might start getting
> the message then!
>

Might happen to the suspects, but again, it isn't going to affect the whole lobby one iota.

Rich
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
Mr [email protected] (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room new build] wrote:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2726571.stm

Hmmm. I'm contacting the BBC - "blamed on frustrated motorists" makes it sound as if speed cameras
interfere with law-abiding drivers, which we all know they don't. I'm trying to ensure I don't type
in metaphorical green ink, mind.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
 
K

Kit Wolf

Guest
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 23:34:02 +0000, Tony W wrote:

>
> "Mr [email protected] (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room new build]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:foX%[email protected]...
>> check this out.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2726571.stm
>>
> Strange that the repeat of Clarkson's tour of Europe featured a Dutch guy whose web site 'honours'
> Gatsos destroyed by fire, bomb or expanding foam just a day or two ago.
>
> Have British yobs no imagination??

Hold on - we don't know for sure they didn't get the idea from Paul Smith's website ;).

KW
 
F

Frank

Guest
"Kit Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> Hold on - we don't know for sure they didn't get the idea from Paul
Smith's
> website ;).
>
I for one think the governments arbitrary restrictions on bombing are ridiculous.

It should be up to the individual bomber to decide when and where it is safe to detonate explosives.
For instance it can be perfectly safe to detonate a nuclear device in the middle of Pacific Ocean
where as a firework detonated in the middle of a crowd of people can cause death and serious injury.

\\www.safebombing.com/
 
F

Fortyeight16

Guest
"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> It should be up to the individual bomber to decide when and where it is
safe
> to detonate explosives. For instance it can be perfectly safe to detonate
a
> nuclear device in the middle of Pacific Ocean where as a firework
detonated
> in the middle of a crowd of people can cause death and serious injury.
>
> \\www.safebombing.com/

ARF!
 
J

John B

Guest
Kit Wolf wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 23:34:02 +0000, Tony W wrote:
>
> >
> > "Mr [email protected] (2.3 zulu-alpha) [comms room new build]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:foX%[email protected]...
> >> check this out.
> >>
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2726571.stm
> >>
> > Strange that the repeat of Clarkson's tour of Europe featured a Dutch guy whose web site
> > 'honours' Gatsos destroyed by fire, bomb or expanding foam just a day or two ago.
> >
> > Have British yobs no imagination??
>
> Hold on - we don't know for sure they didn't get the idea from Paul Smith's website ;).

Are you saying that Paul Smith _isn't_ a 'British yob'?

Is there something you know that we don't?

John B
 
K

Kit Wolf

Guest
>> > Strange that the repeat of Clarkson's tour of Europe featured a Dutch guy whose web site
>> > 'honours' Gatsos destroyed by fire, bomb or expanding foam just a day or two ago.
>> >
>> > Have British yobs no imagination??
>>
>> Hold on - we don't know for sure they didn't get the idea from Paul Smith's website ;).
>
> Are you saying that Paul Smith _isn't_ a 'British yob'?
>
> Is there something you know that we don't?

I've no idea whether he is a yob or not. (I suspect not) But he has had pictures of several
vandalised speed cameras on his website, so maybe the yobs took their cues from him (in truth, JC
sounds more likely, which presumably makes them multicultural yobs).

Did Clarkson make any value judgments on speed camera execution, out of interest? He showed a clip
the other day of a 4x4 pulverising a small car, and said "now, which of those would you rather be
in" which had my hackles raised.

Kit W
 
M

Mr [email protected] \ -Lsqco

Guest
In news:[email protected], Richard Goodman <[email protected]> typed:

> Oh I don't know. I can't see that the whole pro-speeder lobby is likely to be affected by any
> penalties those who did this will get, if they're caught.

Not *directly* ; but this latest event will no doubt re-inforce in the minds of the authorities that
there are elements of the pro-speed / drive at any costs lobby who are potentially *dangerous* - and
they may well now come under scrutiny of agencies a bit higher up than the local traffic cops!

Other pro-motoring groups are already talking about "civil disobedience" and "attacking congestion
charge cameras" in London - and these kind of threats don't go un-noticed by the powers that be.

They are now a protest/*terrorist* group who have shown their willingness to use violence and
improvised explosive devices, way beyond the levels of peaceful protest.

Hopefully we will see them being subject to the same level of police surveillance, monitoring and
disruption of their activities as the eco-warriors were 7 years ago when they tried similar tactics.

Alex
 
R

Russell Pinder

Guest
"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kit Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:p[email protected]...
> > Hold on - we don't know for sure they didn't get the idea from Paul
> Smith's
> > website ;).
> >
> I for one think the governments arbitrary restrictions on bombing are ridiculous.
>
> It should be up to the individual bomber to decide when and where it is
safe
> to detonate explosives. For instance it can be perfectly safe to detonate
a
> nuclear device in the middle of Pacific Ocean where as a firework
detonated
> in the middle of a crowd of people can cause death and serious injury.
>
> \\www.safebombing.com/

You've nicked George W Bush's briefing papers haven't you :)

Russ
 
R

Robert McDonald

Guest
I just love this quote from Plod:

"Had someone been driving past at this time, the occupants would have been seriously injured or
killed and we could have been looking at a murder inquiry"

Oh, the poor motorist again! Tough luck then if you're a pedestrian standing alongside it with your
kiddies, riding past on your bike or just happen to be living beside it!!!!!!

Soapbox mode OFF

BigRAb
 
G

Geraint Jones

Guest
[email protected] (Robert McDonald!!!!!!) wrote: ( "Had someone been driving past at this
time, the occupants would have ) been seriously injured or killed and we could have been looking at
a ( murder inquiry" ) ( Oh, the poor motorist again! Tough luck then if you're a pedestrian )
standing alongside it with your kiddies, riding past on your bike or ( just happen to be living
beside it!!!!!!

Perhaps the A605 Thrapston bypass isn't the sort of road you'd want to be standing alongside
with your kiddies, etc in the first place? It doesn't look as though many people live alongside
it (!!!!!!).
 
D

David E. Belche

Guest
"Kit Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> He showed a clip the other day of a 4x4 pulverising a small car, and said "now, which of those
> would you rather be in" which had my hackles raised.

Then again, which of those would you prefer Clarkson to be sitting in? ;-)

David E. Belcher

Dept. of Chemistry, University of York
 
F

Fortyeight16

Guest
"Kit Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...

> He showed a clip the other day of a 4x4 pulverising a small car, and said "now, which of those
> would you rather be in" which had my hackles raised.

We should tax vehicles on their destructive force, i.e. work out a formula which takes into account
their fuel type, fuel economy, size, weight and top speed.
 
M

Marc

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm contacting the BBC - "blamed on frustrated motorists" makes it sound as if speed cameras
> interfere with law-abiding drivers, which we all know they don't.

Who's this "we" Tonto? As a "law-abiding driver" or even cyclist I have been interefed with as a
result of other "law-abiding drivers" brakeing too hard/fast when approaching speed cameras.

--
Marc T Shirts, Sweatshirts, polo shirts, banners, signs,decals, stickers etc for clubs and
associations of all types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
marc wrote:

>> "blamed on frustrated motorists" makes it sound as if speed cameras interfere with law-abiding
>> drivers, which we all know they don't.

> Who's this "we" Tonto? As a "law-abiding driver" or even cyclist I have been interefed with as a
> result of other "law-abiding drivers" brakeing too hard/fast when approaching speed cameras.

So you blame the inanimate object instead of the crass behaviour of the **** in front?

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
 
M

Marc

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> "blamed on frustrated motorists" makes it sound as if speed cameras interfere with law-abiding
> >> drivers, which we all know they don't.
>
> > Who's this "we" Tonto? As a "law-abiding driver" or even cyclist I have been interefed with as a
> > result of other "law-abiding drivers" brakeing too hard/fast when approaching speed cameras.
>
> So you blame the inanimate object instead of the crass behaviour of the **** in front?

Yep! Remove the inanimate object and the crass behaviour of the **** in front will be about 300 yds
away from me. If you want to, substitute the inanimate object with an animate object in a uniform
that can pull the **** over where it's safe, I have no problems with that.
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:06:08 +0000, [email protected] (Marc) wrote:

>> So you blame the inanimate object instead of the crass behaviour of the **** in front?

>Yep! Remove the inanimate object and the crass behaviour of the **** in front will be about 300 yds
>away from me. If you want to, substitute the inanimate object with an animate object in a uniform
>that can pull the **** over where it's safe, I have no problems with that.

And of course leaving the camera grey, hiding it behind a tree, and taking the **** off the road
after four flashes is not an option.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
M

Marc

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >Yep! Remove the inanimate object and the crass behaviour of the **** in front will be about 300
> >yds away from me. If you want to, substitute the inanimate object with an animate object in a
> >uniform that can pull the **** over where it's safe, I have no problems with that.
>
> And of course leaving the camera grey, hiding it behind a tree, and taking the **** off the road
> after four flashes is not an option.

Works for me! If the idea is to take drivers off the road, but if you want them to "kill their
speed" at accident black spots it makes sense to make them bright yellow . Actually it makes more
sense to alter the road to take away the black spot , but that doesn't make money and costs it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.