OT: Sp**d C*m*r*s

  • Thread starter Colin Blackburn
  • Start date



Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Colin Blackburn

Guest
I know it is well OT but I was amused by a short piece in the Metro today about a motorist convicted
of destroying a speed camera. He was clocked at 13mph over the limit (not sure what the limit was)
and rather than face the fine, the points, and the sack from work, he took an angle grinder to the
camera. Now, as well as the above, he has to pay 4000 pounds compensation and do 120 hours of
community service. Will he learn, I doubt it. I hope they confiscated his angle grinder.

Colin
 
D

Dave Larrington

Guest
W

Wafflycathcsdir

Guest
There's one in the town not far from me that is right next to someone's garden and it's been fire
damaged. heaven knows what would have happened if it had set light to the shed or transferred to the
house. Nasty. I hope they get the terrorists who do it.

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
Clean up the waste & get rid of the trapped wind to send a reply

Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
~~~~~~~~~~
 
A

Albert Fish

Guest
"wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There's one in the town not far from me that is right next to someone's garden and it's been fire
> damaged. heaven knows what would have happened if it had set light to the shed or transferred to
> the house. Nasty. I hope they get the terrorists who do it.
>
> Cheers, helen s

Terrorists ?

you jest, surely.

civil disobedience on the grounds of conscience has a long tradition in this country.


Albert
 
J

Just Zis Guy

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

> I have an horrible suspicion that I know who did it, and it was neither
P++l
> Sm+th or J+r+my Cl+rks+n...

The reward money will go about halfway towards that Trice Micro you've been promising yourself ;-)

--
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.
 
W

W K

Guest
"albert fish" <[email protected][thisbit]ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> civil disobedience on the grounds of conscience has a long tradition in
this country.

What about criminal damage for the sake of childish whinging about having to follow simple rules.
 
M

Michael Macclan

Guest
In message <[email protected]>, albert fish
<[email protected][thisbit].invalid> writes
>"wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> There's one in the town not far from me that is right next to someone's garden and it's been fire
>> damaged. heaven knows what would have happened if it had set light to the shed or transferred to
>> the house. Nasty. I hope they get the terrorists who do it.
>>
>> Cheers, helen s
>
>Terrorists ?
>
>you jest, surely.
>
>civil disobedience on the grounds of conscience

.... also known as vandalism on the grounds of disrespect for sensible laws .....

>has a long tradition in this country.
>

.... which doesn't make it right. I can hear the sound of my tax pounds going up in flames.

Michael MacClancy
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
> civil disobedience on the grounds of conscience has a long tradition in
this country.

But most of them had the decency to stay around and take the consequences of their actions. This is
not an act of conscience, it's an act of criminal damage against public property almost certainly
carried out by someone who has committed an offence and been caught.

If they object to speed limits on grounds of conscience, they should take the fine to the courts of
appeal. That's how unjust laws are challenged. Like the poll tax protesters and the suffragettes.

--
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.
 
T

Tim Woodall

Guest
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:14:28 +0000 (UTC),
W K <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "albert fish" <[email protected][thisbit]ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> civil disobedience on the grounds of conscience has a long tradition in
> this country.
>
> What about criminal damage for the sake of childish whinging about having to follow simple rules.
>
Indeed. The civil disobedience on the grounds of conscience is breaking the speedlimit, not the
speed camera.

Regards,

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
 
A

Albert Fish

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > civil disobedience on the grounds of conscience has a long tradition in
> this country.
>
> But most of them had the decency to stay around and take the consequences of their actions. This
> is not an act of conscience, it's an act of criminal damage against public property almost
> certainly carried out by someone who has committed an offence and been caught.
>
> If they object to speed limits on grounds of conscience, they should take the fine to the courts
> of appeal. That's how unjust laws are challenged. Like the poll tax protesters and the
> suffragettes.
>
> --
> Guy

it's just another form of direct action by people that feel that they are not being listened to by
tptb. true, it's a pointless and costly but it's a valid form of protest however much you or I
disagree with the methods involved.

recently, someone detonated some sort of homebrew explosive device inside a speed camera blowing it
to many, many bits. whilst any sensible person cannot condone members of the public going about
blowing disagreeable objects up, it must have been a sight to behold and very satisfying for the
blower-uppers.

one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, I suppose.


Albert
 
M

Michael Macclan

Guest
In message <[email protected]>, albert fish
<[email protected][thisbit].invalid> writes
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> > civil disobedience on the grounds of conscience has a long tradition in
>> this country.
>>
>> But most of them had the decency to stay around and take the consequences of their actions. This
>> is not an act of conscience, it's an act of criminal damage against public property almost
>> certainly carried out by someone who has committed an offence and been caught.
>>
>> If they object to speed limits on grounds of conscience, they should take the fine to the courts
>> of appeal. That's how unjust laws are challenged. Like the poll tax protesters and the
>> suffragettes.
>>
>> --
>> Guy
>
>it's just another form of direct action by people that feel that they are not being listened to by
>tptb. true, it's a pointless and costly but it's a valid form of protest however much you or I
>disagree with the methods involved.
>
>recently, someone detonated some sort of homebrew explosive device inside a speed camera blowing it
>to many, many bits. whilst any sensible person cannot condone members of the public going about
>blowing disagreeable objects up, it must have been a sight to behold and very satisfying for the
>blower-uppers.
>
>one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, I suppose.
>

Albert Fish: Do you condone people breaking the law instead of challenging it using the legal and
democratic processes which are undoubtedly available to them in this country? These people aren't
terrorists _or_ freedom fighters, they're faceless cowardly vandals.

--
Michael MacClancy
 
A

Albert Fish

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

Michael MacClancy:

> Albert Fish: Do you condone people breaking the law instead of challenging it using the legal and
> democratic processes which are undoubtedly available to them in this country?

In some cases an emphatic YES !

in this case no.

> These people aren't terrorists _or_ freedom fighters, they're faceless cowardly vandals.

in your opinion, old bean.

to others they are striking some sort of blow against some kind of real or imagined bogeyman. I
neither agree or disagree with their actions or tactics but I do disagree (strongly) with their
philosophy.


Albert
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
"albert fish" <[email protected][thisbit]ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > > civil disobedience on the grounds of conscience has a long tradition
in
> > this country.

> > But most of them had the decency to stay around and take the
consequences of
> > their actions. This is not an act of conscience, it's an act of
criminal
> > damage against public property almost certainly carried out by someone
who
> > has committed an offence and been caught.

> it's just another form of direct action by people that feel that they are
not being
> listened to by tptb. true, it's a pointless and costly but it's a valid
form of protest
> however much you or I disagree with the methods involved.

It's not so much the methods as the target of those methods. The fundamental problem, for me, with
Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith and his ilk is that they accuse the Government of focusing on the wrong
thing - speed - and then go off on one about the wrong thing, namely speed cameras. If you disagree
with speed limits, then challenge the speed limits. None of these protests are about the speed
limits, they're about the fact that they can now be enforced by a means which is not susceptible to
funny handshakes and the like.

> one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, I suppose.

But it's like muggers torching CCTV cameras as a protest against infirngement of their "right" to
mug. Speeding is not a right, it's an offence. If you think it shouldn't be illegal, then challenge
that by going to court, refusing to pay the fine, going to jail. If everybody convicted of speeding
refused to pay the system would rapidly break down.

Instead, an individual decides to destroy an expensive piece of public property, with the suspicion
that it is to conceal evidence. Doubtless the people at Enron who sent stuff to the shredders were
equally convinced of the rightness of their cause.

Consider: bombing a camera involves considerable risk. Would you take that risk for the sake of the
first three points on your licence, or maybe only the last three? Research shows that serial
speeding offenders are more likely to be involved in crashes, and more likely to commit other
offences. If this is a guy sailing close to the automatic ban, the chances are that he's a menace to
the public in his car as well as when he's blowing up our property.

--
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.
 
A

Albert Fish

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It's not so much the methods as the target of those methods.

isn't that what I said some moments ago ?

> Consider: bombing a camera involves considerable risk.

Hardly.

> Would you take that risk for the sake of the first three points on your licence, or maybe only the
> last three?

not me, I don't speed, either. in fact, after recently returning to driving a cage after a two year
break I'm stunned at how bad things have become what with people going blue/purple in the face,
shouting obscenities because I'm doing a constant 56mph (for 55mpg) in a 60 limit and they want to
get past me.

> Research shows that serial speeding offenders are more likely to be involved in crashes, and more
> likely to commit other offences.

well, research can be wheeled out to prove or disprove almost anything.

> If this is a guy sailing close to the automatic ban, the chances are that he's a menace to the
> public in his car as well as when he's blowing up our property.

if. but we don't even know if it was a man /or/ a woman, do we ?

i /fa/ support direct action but that doesn't mean I want ******/hanging reinstated.


Albert
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
"albert fish" <[email protected][thisbit]ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> Consider: bombing a camera involves considerable risk.
> Hardly.

You think not? The risk of being detected in a criminal act with a jail term attached? The personal
risk of unscheduled detonation?

I would consider bombing a camera as a pretty desperate act - the last refuge of someone who has
tried everything else possible apart from not actually breaking the law, which would of course be an
unconscionable restrction on individual liberty...

> > Would you take that risk for the sake of the first three points on your licence, or maybe
only
> > the last three?

> not me, I don't speed, either. in fact, after recently returning to
driving a cage
> after a two year break I'm stunned at how bad things have become what with people going
> blue/purple in the face, shouting obscenities because I'm
doing
> a constant 56mph (for 55mpg) in a 60 limit and they want to get past me.

Yes - the thing is, I think it's been like that for a while, you just don't notice until you
stop doing it. Then you get back in the car and realise that driving is really pretty unpleasant
these days.

> > Research shows that serial speeding offenders are more likely to be involved in crashes, and
> > more likely to commit other
offences.

> well, research can be wheeled out to prove or disprove almost anything.

Of course, but this is a credible conclusion. Most responsible drivers, after being caught once or
twice, would get the message. Thiose who continue to offend are clearly more dedicated to their
own selfish ends than to "fitting in" with what society expects and demands of them. So it seems
to me, anyway.

> > If this is a guy sailing close to the automatic ban, the chances are
that
> > he's a menace to the public in his car as well as when he's blowing up
our
> > property.

> if. but we don't even know if it was a man /or/ a woman, do we ?

If it had been a woman she'd have knifed it ;-)

> I /do/ support direct action but that doesn't mean I want ******/hanging
reinstated.

I supported direct action in the case of the Poll Tax, because that was a good way to get the law
repealed. Speed limits are not unjust, to my mind, so don't justify such action. But I could
respect somoene who decided to go to jail rather than pay. Blowing up [robot] policemen is a
different kind of act.

--
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.
 
A

Albert Fish

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "albert fish" <[email protected][thisbit]ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Consider: bombing a camera involves considerable risk.
> > Hardly.
>
> You think not? The risk of being detected in a criminal act with a jail term attached? The
> personal risk of unscheduled detonation?

nearly all 'risk' can be reduced if not removed entirely.

> I would consider bombing a camera as a pretty desperate act - the last refuge of someone who has
> tried everything else possible apart from not actually breaking the law, which would of course be
> an unconscionable restrction on individual liberty...

agreed.

> > > Would you take that risk for the sake of the first three points on your licence, or maybe
> only
> > > the last three?
>
> > not me, I don't speed, either. in fact, after recently returning to
> driving a cage
> > after a two year break I'm stunned at how bad things have become what with people going
> > blue/purple in the face, shouting obscenities because I'm
> doing
> > a constant 56mph (for 55mpg) in a 60 limit and they want to get past me.
>
> Yes - the thing is, I think it's been like that for a while, you just don't notice until you
> stop doing it. Then you get back in the car and realise that driving is really pretty unpleasant
> these days.

I dislike it a lot but have no other realistic choice.

> > I /do/ support direct action but that doesn't mean I want ******/hanging
> reinstated.
>
> I supported direct action in the case of the Poll Tax, because that was a good way to get the law
> repealed. Speed limits are not unjust, to my mind, so don't justify such action.

well, as I see it the protest is against the camera=fixed penalty rather than the more sporting
policeman=fixed penalty style of capture and the resulting action was against the camera and not
directed at the speed limits.

> But I could respect someone who decided to go to jail rather than pay. Blowing up [robot]
> policemen is a different kind of act.
>

and that's all it is, different. right or wrong is wholly subjective where direct action against
inanimate objects or property are involved, the only clear demarcation between right or wrong
involves damage or injury to people, which is obviously unjustified whatever the circumstances.


Albert
 
M

Michael Macclan

Guest
In message <[email protected]>, albert fish
<[email protected][thisbit].invalid> writes
>well, as I see it the protest is against the camera=fixed penalty rather than the more sporting
>policeman=fixed penalty style of capture and the resulting action was against the camera and not
>directed at the speed limits.

If they were willing to pay the massive fixed penalties necessary to pay for the massive number of
police needed to ensure compliance with the law then I might agree. But in reality there's a group
of people out there who like speeding and don't like the thought that they may be penalised for
doing so. Cameras provide an easy mechanism for increasing the likelihood of capture and spoiling
their fun without employing loads more police. It's a protest against getting caught speeding. If it
wasn't complaints about cameras it would be complaints about unsporting members of the constabulary
hiding in bushes or not wearing flashing lights on their helmets.
--
Michael MacClancy
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
"albert fish" <[email protected][thisbit]ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> well, as I see it the protest is against the camera=fixed penalty rather
than the
> more sporting policeman=fixed penalty style of capture and the resulting
action
> was against the camera and not directed at the speed limits.

Yes, I have heard a similar argument before. Presumably it's OK to be fined if you've had the fun of
a chase first, or if the police have at least had to divert some resources from catching ramraiders
and joyriders in order to catch you.

I don't buy into that, of course - law enforcement is not a game, it's a part of civil society.

I suppose, though, that in some ways I too am registering a protest: by observing the speed limit,
or better still using a bicycle, I am leaving them with all the costs of the camera infrastructure
and none of the revenue. Obviously this particular piece of sedition is not acceptable to members of
the Church of the Mobile Death Greenhouse, though :)

--
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.