Police in London attack critical mass

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 15:55:14 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>you do not use a Taser on a suspected suicide
>bomber unless you want to risk detonating their explosives.

If the police really did suspect that their victim was a suicide
bomber then they were not doing a very good job letting him on a
bus.

So far all their ******** has failed to provide a convincing
explanation about this. Time will tell whether they give the
"independent" investigators a convincing explanation.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[davidof]

Tony Raven wrote:
you do not use a Taser on a suspected suicide
> bomber unless you want to risk detonating their explosives.

I wonder if that is really true?

 

[Mark Thompson]

> it is a spontaneous coming together of people

lmao, but I now see why you have to maintain the fiction.

 

[Sniper8052]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

> "Sniper8052" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I fail to see why other road users, including
>> pedestrians, should have to suffer their bullish behavior because 'they'
>> choose to behave like louts once a month.
>
> Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
> behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?
>
> Cheers, helen s

You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what. If the group loosly
termed CM, which chooses not to acknowledge it acts as a group, feel they
have something to protest, fine let them protest, but also let them follow
the rules and laws set down for the normal function of the roads and
society. In my book two wrongs don't make a right and CM has on the
occasions I have seen them been little more than an unruly and loud mob
intent on being a pain in the backside to all and sundry. Whilst this may
not be the intent of all those present enough of the riders present this
behavior to tarnish all with the same brush.


Sniper8052

 

[Sniper8052]

On 7 Oct 2005 09:13:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> 'Yes, some car drivers behave badly and motor vehicles congestion is a
> problem. How does that make it right for a bunch of cyclists to cause
> additional inconvenience to people? I am sick of hearing how this is
> "revenge" on car drivers blah blah blah'
>
> By the same reasoning do you hate organised running events such as The
> London marathon, or carnivals such as Notting Hill because these also
> **** motorists off who think they have a god-given right to drive
> where-ever they please at all times? I would see CM as being not such
> much as being a 'revenge' on car drivers but a celebration of cycling,
> just as the London marathon is a celebration of personal achievement
> and The Notting Hill carnival a celebration of the ethnic diversity of
> the UK.
>
> What we need to be doing is laying bare the prejudice and hate against
> cyclists which means that CM is can even be considered to be
> counter-productive. What you seem to be saying is that cyclists should
> act like negros in the American South and take care not to upset any of
> the dominant social group or to appear to be 'uppity'.
>
> "Now you cyclists all be good little ******ers there and wear your
> polystyrene hats and yellow jackets, take care to keep out of the
> fuc*ing way, and if drivers cut you up, just shut up, or we will make
> things real bad for you, do you hear me boy?"

I think you have hit the nail here, *organised events*, are just that
organised to minimise disruption and delays whilst maintaining a safe
environment for everyone watching, taking part, policing and travelling.
CM does not do wish to conform to these norms believing it has the right to
run rough-shod over the normal rights of others. If you see it as a
celebration of cycling a good many others see it as a bunch of noisy
braggards flouting the rules of the road and activly seeking confrontation
with motorists.
The London to Brighton Run is a celebration of motoring, I don't see them
having a problem with obeying the rules and if they didn't they would be
taken to task for their behavior. Why should CM be any different?

Sniper8052

 

[Sniper8052]

On 7 Oct 2005 09:58:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>>
>> Both of which notify the Police and follow the rules for organised
>> events which CM doesn't.
>>
>> --
>> Tony
>>
>
> A technicality and no more. As has been covered ad infinitum CM is not
> 'organised' in the same way. Then again perhaps the sort of support the
> police give to such events might not be a bad idea. Fully closed roads
> with any one attempting to enter the route being liable to arrest under
> section 16A of The Road Traffic Regulations Act and so on. Something
> tells me full road closures would '********' drivers even more though.
>
> Perhaps you (and others) have no idea about what is involved in
> organising an 'official' event on the highway, but I have been involved
> in organising such events and it is a massive task. A one day Premier
> calandar road race out in the sticks can take almost a year to organise
> with a team of 8 plus dozens of helpers on the day, and cost at least
> £10,000, more if the police want paying for their time at the full
> rate.
>
> To put you in the picture if a CM event were to be made 'official' the
> 'organisers' would have to follow the 'Events on the public highway'
> guidelines and this would create a huge task for any 'organiser', as
> well as landing them with some potentially very onerous insurance
> liabilities. Such an 'organised' CM event would certainly need much
> more in the way of police resources, the bill for which would which
> doubtlessly be sent by the police to the 'organisation' of CM, who
> wouldn't have the cash unless all participants were charged at least
> £20-£30 per ride.(Perhaps much more given the costs of policing a
> ride in central London, erecting barriers according to best practice
> guidelines and so on). This is obviously not going to happen so no
> 'event' full stop and the criminalisation of any group of cyclists
> riding together deemed by the police to be part of any 'protest'.
>
> Well done Tony, good strategy. Perhaps you should look to a career in
> the police service.

To start with all that was asked was that the route be notified in advance.
CM has never had a huge police presence but has stedfastly refused to obey
the rules of the road with a number behaving like a bunch of louts and
bullies on enough occasions that it is now to be classed as an illeagal
demonstration. What form any action will take I have no idea but it does
seem that they, it, whatever you wish to call CM has brought this upon
itself. All of the above was never asked for to start with and is now the
fruit of CM's labour. You cry persecution and conspiracy...No it's just
time you woke up to the fact that being school yard bullies won't be
tolerated anymore.

Sniper8052

 

[Sniper8052]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 23:45:06 +0100, Jon Senior wrote:

> Sniper8052 wrote:
>> The fact is that the group, self styled Critical Mass, wishes to evade it's
>> collective responsibility to behave properly and often behaves very badly
>> by all accounts.
>
> It does not have a "collective responsibility". Any more than a crush of
> pedestrians traveling the same footpath have a collective responsibility.
>
> > I fail to see why other road users, including
>> pedestrians, should have to suffer their bullish behavior because 'they'd
>> choose to behave like louts once a month.
>
> Some do, some don't. There are some bad ones but the way to deal with
> them is to rally the rest of the group by supporting the action, not by
> attempting to alienate all participants. As others have asked, how do
> you (As a vocal supporter of the police action) propose to distinguish
> between CMers and other cyclists who just happened to be going the same
> way? Or would such "participants" be guilty by association in your book.
>
>> If CM want to ride around London, fine, obey the rules... all of them. If
>> CM voluntary workers think they are above or beyond the law and hope to
>> evade the responsibility they are taking on themselves in 'not' organizing
>> the ride, but publicly promoting it, they may find they are in fact
>> 'responsible' in the 'eyes of the law'.
>
> The best way to deal with the idiots (From my experience of a few,
> admittedly smaller, CMs) here is to enter the group as a member and
> speak to them privately. No threats needed. Just a gentle, "You're not
> really proving anything by swearing at that driver now are you?". This
> would be far more likely to gain you the support of the rest of the group.
>
>> This requirement is a notice to all that public anarchy once a month will
>> no longer be tolerated. A notice which is long overdue in my opinion.
>
> Any individual who breaks the law can and should be treated accordingly.
> This goes for the drivers who take it upon themselves to break the mass
> as well as those inside it who think they are vigilantes. But the moment
> you label all members of the group the same regardless of their actions
> you are entering dangerous territory. If your neighbour robs a house,
> you are not considered guilty by proximity. Why should the same not
> apply to CM?
>
> Fundamentally, you cannot stop CM from happening. Without much effort I
> can think of many ways of avoiding any attempts at control. Bring in the
> riot police and the cyclists will bring in the press... and you may not
> have noticed, but the police are not really doing well in the PR stakes
> at the minute.
>
> Jon
>
> Also a one-time supporter of CM

Any body acting as a group has a collective responsibility. The ride acts
as a group thus it has a collective responsibility. London Marathon
runners are a group of individuals they still have a collective
responsibility to obey the rules of the organising bodies and society.
I do not know what plans are being made to enforce the new regime, if I am
called upon to exercise any power which I can personally and reasonably
justify as legal and proportionate I will do so. I don't have much of a
'book' pretty much the whole of my philosophy on policing is 'be fair in
all things - be polite always' I've never had much of a problem with that.
I certainly won't be pushed into arresting of ticketing people where I
cannot personally justify my actions.
I don't know what the rules are going to be. I was told today that all
policing was going to be withdrawn so what happens next I don't know, it's
anyone's guess.
I agree that not all members of CM share the same ideas and that perhaps
the majority go along for a nice ride. It will their responsibility set
the example. If the vigilantes make trouble and break societies rules they
should as you acknowledge be punished, as should any drivers who drive in a
dangerous manner. However that also brings the responsibility of the ride
leaders, those at the head of the ride - not 'organisers'- to obey the road
traffic laws. If the Friday skate can manage to tell the police where they
are going and organise things in a half decent manner I don't see much
excuse for CM not having done the same.

Sniper8052

 

[wafflycat]

"Sniper8052" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>
>> "Sniper8052" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I fail to see why other road users, including
>>> pedestrians, should have to suffer their bullish behavior because 'they'
>>> choose to behave like louts once a month.
>>
>> Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
>> behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?
>>
>> Cheers, helen s
>
> You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
> the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what. If the group loosly
> termed CM, which chooses not to acknowledge it acts as a group, feel they
> have something to protest, fine let them protest, but also let them follow
> the rules and laws set down for the normal function of the roads and
> society. In my book two wrongs don't make a right and CM has on the
> occasions I have seen them been little more than an unruly and loud mob
> intent on being a pain in the backside to all and sundry. Whilst this may
> not be the intent of all those present enough of the riders present this
> behavior to tarnish all with the same brush.

Excellent, I wonder how you'll go about getting all the motorists in London
to provide advance notice of where they are going. After all, it may not be
the intent of all those present in the rush-hour to be a PITA to all and
sundry but shurely there are enough of them holding up everyone and breaking
the law (jumping red lights... road rage... illegal parking... injure a few
in accidents etc) to tarnish all with the same brush?

I have no problem with those who break the law (whatever mode of transport)
being brought to book. What I do have a problem with is the singling out of
cyclists who apparently cause a problem once a month, when gridlock is
achieved and laws broken on a daily basis by those travelling in motor
vehicles. It smacks of picking on a minority group which is an easy target.

Cheers, helen s

 

[Jon Senior]

Sniper8052 wrote:
> Whilst this may
> not be the intent of all those present enough of the riders present this
> behavior to tarnish all with the same brush.

Wrong attitude. Under no circumstances is it acceptable to label an
entire group based on the behaviour of some members of that group. In
other circumstances that is considered racist, or sexist. It is that
level of ignorance combined with unreasonable (And frequently abused)
power that has cultivated my dislike of the police. Do yourself a favour
and demonstrate that as an officer of the law you are capable of seeing
things with a little more clarity than your fellow civilian. Power =
responsibility... remember?

Jon

 

[Michael MacClancy]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:18:53 +0200, davidof wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
> you do not use a Taser on a suspected suicide
>> bomber unless you want to risk detonating their explosives.
>
> I wonder if that is really true?

There's a discussion of it here:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=559307
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Al C-F]

Sniper8052 wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>
>
..
>>
>>Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
>>behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?
>>

>
>
> You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
> the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what.

By 'the rules of acceptable behaviour' do you mean the law, or is your
use of this terminology disguising an authoritarian stance whereby you
make up rules to suit your prejudices?

 

[dave]

Al C-F wrote:
> Sniper8052 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>>
>>
> .
>
>>>
>>> Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
>>> behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?
>>>
>
>>
>>
>> You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
>> the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what.
>
>
> By 'the rules of acceptable behaviour' do you mean the law, or is your
> use of this terminology disguising an authoritarian stance whereby you
> make up rules to suit your prejudices?


A little unfair. Sniper may be a cop and hence subject to some of the
er... psychological modification that comes with the job. (with being
on the job actually but he is a thoughly reasonable one. I mean
hell you can disagree with the guy without any issues most of the time.

When he says acceptable behavior. he means acceptable to the cops.. sure
and I dont agree with him that thats ok one little bit. But that really
does come with the job. I doubt actual prejudice. Its more like these
guys are giving me an issue and... Not predudice assuch... (damm my
spelling)

 

[Sniper8052]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:58:40 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

> "Sniper8052" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>>
>>> "Sniper8052" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> I fail to see why other road users, including
>>>> pedestrians, should have to suffer their bullish behavior because 'they'
>>>> choose to behave like louts once a month.
>>>
>>> Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
>>> behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?
>>>
>>> Cheers, helen s
>>
>> You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
>> the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what. If the group loosly
>> termed CM, which chooses not to acknowledge it acts as a group, feel they
>> have something to protest, fine let them protest, but also let them follow
>> the rules and laws set down for the normal function of the roads and
>> society. In my book two wrongs don't make a right and CM has on the
>> occasions I have seen them been little more than an unruly and loud mob
>> intent on being a pain in the backside to all and sundry. Whilst this may
>> not be the intent of all those present enough of the riders present this
>> behavior to tarnish all with the same brush.
>
> Excellent, I wonder how you'll go about getting all the motorists in London
> to provide advance notice of where they are going. After all, it may not be
> the intent of all those present in the rush-hour to be a PITA to all and
> sundry but shurely there are enough of them holding up everyone and breaking
> the law (jumping red lights... road rage... illegal parking... injure a few
> in accidents etc) to tarnish all with the same brush?
>
> I have no problem with those who break the law (whatever mode of transport)
> being brought to book. What I do have a problem with is the singling out of
> cyclists who apparently cause a problem once a month, when gridlock is
> achieved and laws broken on a daily basis by those travelling in motor
> vehicles. It smacks of picking on a minority group which is an easy target.
>
> Cheers, helen s

The difference is that CM are doing something illegal as a cohesive body
where the motorists are not. Certainly on any given day one can find
numerous examples of individual drivers flouting the traffic laws; and on
occasion groups of drivers use their vehicles to protest fuel taxes etc.
However even these manage to tell the police and public in the majority of
cases where and when they will be protesting.
I don't think it's picking on a vulnerable group to ask CM when riding as a
group to behave in a responsible manner. No one is suggesting that all
cyclists are included in this requirement, or that cyclists cannot freely
ride where they wish as a group. The requirement is that if the group acts
as a procession, it must be organised as such with a planned and notified
route etc.
This is the culmination of actions, not the start. The leaders, for want
of a better word, could easily have notified the police and ride of their
intended routes. If they maintain a web site this information could have
been published as meet as Waterloo Bridge route to.... Rides could then
have been policed to allow the body to process as a 'group' with a minimum
police presence.
A lot has been said of it being an autonomous grouping of individuals with
no organisers etc, the fact is if there were no organisers maintaining the
web sites and activists placing somewhat varied articles the ride would
undoubtably be of a very different nature or would cease to exist. Those
who think there is no leadership within the group which calls itself CM are
mistaken even if they do not readily recognise the leaders and organisers
during the ride those persons are present.
The introduction of group dynamics into the ride also gives rise to the
manipulation of the ride for political or social aims which may not have
been the intent of any one individual rider when joining the ride. There
is often more involved in the behavior of a fluid group than is apparent
even to its members who as 'members' often allow their normal behavior to
suspended by the actions of a few more dominant members. There are many
examples of this type of experiment in psychology and sociology books.

Sniper8052

 

[[email protected]]

A little story for Sniper and anyone else rubbing thier hands together
in anticipation of the brave new fascist future awaiting the UK.

-----------------------------------

It was a bright Sunday, October day, the year 2015. The dozen or so
cyclists whirred along down the country lane enjoying the morning air
and each others company. 'Car!' came the sudden cry from the rear and
the cyclists instantly singled out, fearfully aware that should they be
hit no court in the land would hold the driver responsible. Long called
'outlaws' by the official 'New Fascist Party' press, (as 'New Labour'
now called itself in response to the 'New Right' Conservatism of the
later 2000's) they were now exactly that, deemed to be outlaws beyond
the protection of the law.

The cyclists had tried to force from their minds just how their
glorious leader and president for life Tony Blair, in a pact with the
motoring lobby, including both extremists and mainstream groups such as
the ABD had, in exchange for their guaranteed support, completely
rewritten the Highway Code had removed any burden for avoiding killing
or injuring cyclists from the shoulders of the motorist. However, this
was easier said than done. Now it truly was a case, as the Minister for
Transport, Jeremy Clarkson had put it, of cyclists ensuring that they
'got out of the way' of the car-bourn 'Lords of the highway' and having
to 'shut up if they were cut up'. Not that 'getting out of the way' was
easy when the universal national speed limit had been abolished and the
only speed limit enforcement occurred outside schools for 30 minutes
per day, and even this only when there was sufficient road space to
erect flashing warning signs for at least 2 miles before the restricted
zone.

Suddenly there was the deafening sound of a police siren and the car
raced past only to brake sharply in front of them. The corpulent
officer, strapping on his mace canister and gun holster eased himself
from the seat and confronted them.

"What's all this then? I haven't had a safety audit submitted for a
cycle event on this stretch of road toady, and if I had I would have
rejected the application."

'It's not an organised event officer", Came the reply from one of the
old timers in the group, "It's a club run."

'I suppose you all just happened to meet up together by chance,"
scoffed the officer. "I'll tell you now if I had received a report
from any driver that they had had to slow down before being able to
pass you I would have been down here with the riot van and you lot
would be court tomorrow on a charge of wilfully obstructing the
motorists highway. I am sure you lot ride bike simply in order to ****
motorists off."

'We are not organised" insisted the rider. "This club has been meeting
at the same point for almost 90 years, people just turn up."

"Don't get wise with me son", said the officer. 'You know the law. Any
group of more than 2 cyclists riding together is deemed by the law to
be an organised group and as such the organiser must submit a full
safety audit and route details to the police not less than 3 months in
advance. I know the likes of you lot. Bloody anarchists who still think
that cyclists can ride where they like. Well you can't. We are not in
Europe now and if you don't like living in Airstrip One (as the 54th
sate of America was now nicknamed- Iraq being the 53rd) you can just
apply for asylum in France or Holland."

The riders collectively often dream of doing so but knew this was an
impossibility as with the coming of the 'Glorious New Age of British
Fascism', so long predicted by George Orwell (a writer whose works were
now banned in the UK) the exodus from the UK had become so great that
no European country was accepting more British asylum seekers. In any
case as everyone knew but no one dare speak of, it would not be long
before the invasion of Europe would come, with the Christian Army of
Corporate America at last smashing the dangerous 'socialist' propaganda
of 'Liberty, Egality and Fraternity' still current in mainland Europe.

'Right get out your ID cards," bellowed the officer.

The officer ran each card though his in-car computer, with the personal
details, income, shopping habits and of course, police checks all being
available on the screen. The officer smiled to himself.

"Right you lot are under arrest. You have been stopped previously for
riding in an unauthorised group of 2 or more and have previously failed
to disclose who is the organiser of your ride. This is a serious
matter. I expect you will all see jail for this." Laughing he added
"It's a pity they cyclists chain gangs have been abolished now there is
no more of the National Cycle Network to dig up."

The officer joyously called up a riot van, which were strategically
placed in every village in the UK as a 'National Security' measure. His
only regret was that they hadn't tried to ride off, using that CS gas
(dismissively called 'Fart spray' amongt his fellow officers) on such
officially designated 'two wheeled terrorists' just felt so good.

The old timer laid dejectedly across the handlebars of his bicycle and
thought back to the days when cyclists could ride the highways of
Britain free of the fear of arrest, even if they were riding in a group
of more than 2. He couldn't be sure anymore, perhaps it had all been
just a dream of his youth...

 

[wafflycat]

"Sniper8052" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:58:40 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>
>> "Sniper8052" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Sniper8052" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> I fail to see why other road users, including
>>>>> pedestrians, should have to suffer their bullish behavior because
>>>>> 'they'
>>>>> choose to behave like louts once a month.
>>>>
>>>> Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
>>>> behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, helen s
>>>
>>> You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
>>> the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what. If the group loosly
>>> termed CM, which chooses not to acknowledge it acts as a group, feel
>>> they
>>> have something to protest, fine let them protest, but also let them
>>> follow
>>> the rules and laws set down for the normal function of the roads and
>>> society. In my book two wrongs don't make a right and CM has on the
>>> occasions I have seen them been little more than an unruly and loud mob
>>> intent on being a pain in the backside to all and sundry. Whilst this
>>> may
>>> not be the intent of all those present enough of the riders present this
>>> behavior to tarnish all with the same brush.
>>
>> Excellent, I wonder how you'll go about getting all the motorists in
>> London
>> to provide advance notice of where they are going. After all, it may not
>> be
>> the intent of all those present in the rush-hour to be a PITA to all and
>> sundry but shurely there are enough of them holding up everyone and
>> breaking
>> the law (jumping red lights... road rage... illegal parking... injure a
>> few
>> in accidents etc) to tarnish all with the same brush?
>>
>> I have no problem with those who break the law (whatever mode of
>> transport)
>> being brought to book. What I do have a problem with is the singling out
>> of
>> cyclists who apparently cause a problem once a month, when gridlock is
>> achieved and laws broken on a daily basis by those travelling in motor
>> vehicles. It smacks of picking on a minority group which is an easy
>> target.
>>
>> Cheers, helen s
>
> The difference is that CM are doing something illegal as a cohesive body
> where the motorists are not.

So hundreds of motorists all travelling down the same road at the same time
are not a cohesive body, but if cyclists they are?




>Certainly on any given day one can find
> numerous examples of individual drivers flouting the traffic laws; and on
> occasion groups of drivers use their vehicles to protest fuel taxes etc.

They have a leader, CM has no leader anymore than said motorists blocking
the road in the rush hour.


> However even these manage to tell the police and public in the majority of
> cases where and when they will be protesting.
> I don't think it's picking on a vulnerable group to ask CM when riding as
> a
> group to behave in a responsible manner.

So why not do the same for all motorists driving in a group in the rush
hour?

>No one is suggesting that all
> cyclists are included in this requirement, or that cyclists cannot freely
> ride where they wish as a group.

That is *exactly* what is being suggested.

>The requirement is that if the group acts
> as a procession, it must be organised as such with a planned and notified
> route etc.

Rush hour drivers?


> This is the culmination of actions, not the start.

Rush hour drivers - the culmination of actions - not the start.

As for web sites - there are a myriad of motoring web sites....

Cheers, helen s

 

[Sniper8052]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:51:24 +1000, dave wrote:

> Al C-F wrote:
>> Sniper8052 wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> .
>>
>>>>
>>>> Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
>>>> behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
>>> the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what.
>>
>>
>> By 'the rules of acceptable behaviour' do you mean the law, or is your
>> use of this terminology disguising an authoritarian stance whereby you
>> make up rules to suit your prejudices?
>
>
> A little unfair. Sniper may be a cop and hence subject to some of the
> er... psychological modification that comes with the job. (with being
> on the job actually but he is a thoughly reasonable one. I mean
> hell you can disagree with the guy without any issues most of the time.
>
> When he says acceptable behavior. he means acceptable to the cops.. sure
> and I dont agree with him that thats ok one little bit. But that really
> does come with the job. I doubt actual prejudice. Its more like these
> guys are giving me an issue and... Not predudice assuch... (damm my
> spelling)

Thanks for defending my honour, I do however mean acceptable to the
majority of the public and society as defined by statute law and common
law. I live by simple rules, I expect people to treat each other nicely,
if they don't it's not acceptable.
My rules for policing are just as simple, be fair - be polite. I am not
and never have been in the business of waving a big stick about because I
can, neither do I go about arresting people, because I can. I police by
consent and persuasion unless I have to do otherwise and no one will push
me from that.

Sniper8052

 

[Sniper8052]

On 8 Oct 2005 01:54:04 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> A little story for Sniper and anyone else rubbing thier hands together
> in anticipation of the brave new fascist future awaiting the UK.
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> It was a bright Sunday, October day, the year 2015. The dozen or so
> cyclists whirred along down the country lane enjoying the morning air
> and each others company. 'Car!' came the sudden cry from the rear and
> the cyclists instantly singled out, fearfully aware that should they be
> hit no court in the land would hold the driver responsible. Long called
> 'outlaws' by the official 'New Fascist Party' press, (as 'New Labour'
> now called itself in response to the 'New Right' Conservatism of the
> later 2000's) they were now exactly that, deemed to be outlaws beyond
> the protection of the law.
>
> The cyclists had tried to force from their minds just how their
> glorious leader and president for life Tony Blair, in a pact with the
> motoring lobby, including both extremists and mainstream groups such as
> the ABD had, in exchange for their guaranteed support, completely
> rewritten the Highway Code had removed any burden for avoiding killing
> or injuring cyclists from the shoulders of the motorist. However, this
> was easier said than done. Now it truly was a case, as the Minister for
> Transport, Jeremy Clarkson had put it, of cyclists ensuring that they
> 'got out of the way' of the car-bourn 'Lords of the highway' and having
> to 'shut up if they were cut up'. Not that 'getting out of the way' was
> easy when the universal national speed limit had been abolished and the
> only speed limit enforcement occurred outside schools for 30 minutes
> per day, and even this only when there was sufficient road space to
> erect flashing warning signs for at least 2 miles before the restricted
> zone.
>
> Suddenly there was the deafening sound of a police siren and the car
> raced past only to brake sharply in front of them. The corpulent
> officer, strapping on his mace canister and gun holster eased himself
> from the seat and confronted them.
>
> "What's all this then? I haven't had a safety audit submitted for a
> cycle event on this stretch of road toady, and if I had I would have
> rejected the application."
>
> 'It's not an organised event officer", Came the reply from one of the
> old timers in the group, "It's a club run."
>
> 'I suppose you all just happened to meet up together by chance,"
> scoffed the officer. "I'll tell you now if I had received a report
> from any driver that they had had to slow down before being able to
> pass you I would have been down here with the riot van and you lot
> would be court tomorrow on a charge of wilfully obstructing the
> motorists highway. I am sure you lot ride bike simply in order to ****
> motorists off."
>
> 'We are not organised" insisted the rider. "This club has been meeting
> at the same point for almost 90 years, people just turn up."
>
> "Don't get wise with me son", said the officer. 'You know the law. Any
> group of more than 2 cyclists riding together is deemed by the law to
> be an organised group and as such the organiser must submit a full
> safety audit and route details to the police not less than 3 months in
> advance. I know the likes of you lot. Bloody anarchists who still think
> that cyclists can ride where they like. Well you can't. We are not in
> Europe now and if you don't like living in Airstrip One (as the 54th
> sate of America was now nicknamed- Iraq being the 53rd) you can just
> apply for asylum in France or Holland."
>
> The riders collectively often dream of doing so but knew this was an
> impossibility as with the coming of the 'Glorious New Age of British
> Fascism', so long predicted by George Orwell (a writer whose works were
> now banned in the UK) the exodus from the UK had become so great that
> no European country was accepting more British asylum seekers. In any
> case as everyone knew but no one dare speak of, it would not be long
> before the invasion of Europe would come, with the Christian Army of
> Corporate America at last smashing the dangerous 'socialist' propaganda
> of 'Liberty, Egality and Fraternity' still current in mainland Europe.
>
> 'Right get out your ID cards," bellowed the officer.
>
> The officer ran each card though his in-car computer, with the personal
> details, income, shopping habits and of course, police checks all being
> available on the screen. The officer smiled to himself.
>
> "Right you lot are under arrest. You have been stopped previously for
> riding in an unauthorised group of 2 or more and have previously failed
> to disclose who is the organiser of your ride. This is a serious
> matter. I expect you will all see jail for this." Laughing he added
> "It's a pity they cyclists chain gangs have been abolished now there is
> no more of the National Cycle Network to dig up."
>
> The officer joyously called up a riot van, which were strategically
> placed in every village in the UK as a 'National Security' measure. His
> only regret was that they hadn't tried to ride off, using that CS gas
> (dismissively called 'Fart spray' amongt his fellow officers) on such
> officially designated 'two wheeled terrorists' just felt so good.
>
> The old timer laid dejectedly across the handlebars of his bicycle and
> thought back to the days when cyclists could ride the highways of
> Britain free of the fear of arrest, even if they were riding in a group
> of more than 2. He couldn't be sure anymore, perhaps it had all been
> just a dream of his youth...

Entertaining, how though does it advance the discussion?

Sniper8052

 

[dave]

Sniper8052 wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:51:24 +1000, dave wrote:
>
>
>>Al C-F wrote:
>>
>>>Sniper8052 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
>>>>>behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
>>>>the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what.
>>>
>>>
>>>By 'the rules of acceptable behaviour' do you mean the law, or is your
>>>use of this terminology disguising an authoritarian stance whereby you
>>>make up rules to suit your prejudices?
>>
>>
>>A little unfair. Sniper may be a cop and hence subject to some of the
>>er... psychological modification that comes with the job. (with being
>>on the job actually but he is a thoughly reasonable one. I mean
>>hell you can disagree with the guy without any issues most of the time.
>>
>>When he says acceptable behavior. he means acceptable to the cops.. sure
>>and I dont agree with him that thats ok one little bit. But that really
>>does come with the job. I doubt actual prejudice. Its more like these
>>guys are giving me an issue and... Not predudice assuch... (damm my
>>spelling)
>
>
> Thanks for defending my honour, I do however mean acceptable to the
> majority of the public and society as defined by statute law and common
> law. I live by simple rules, I expect people to treat each other nicely,
> if they don't it's not acceptable.
> My rules for policing are just as simple, be fair - be polite. I am not
> and never have been in the business of waving a big stick about because I
> can, neither do I go about arresting people, because I can. I police by
> consent and persuasion unless I have to do otherwise and no one will push
> me from that.
>
> Sniper8052


Ummm Yeah. As I said I doubt not that you are a fair and reasonable
copper.

Having shared with a couple.. done courses with other and having my
childhood sweetheart now a rather senior copper I have no doubt that
your viewpoint is a teeny bit slanted. Thats sort of ok; it comes with
the job and really their is no way around it. Being fair and polite is
true of many of us most of the time. But a liking for rules and
organisation is utterly built into the job.

Not into critical mass at all. I think that most people have no
intention of alienating anyone by it. And I think that most people aint
ailienated by it. Netherless anti critical mass sentiment is too easy to
stir up. And it does us little good. And thats sad. I really dont
think it ought to be the police role to interfere but hey I am far away
and as I said not a supporter. But I ride every weekend with several
hundred people and I promise that thier are no organisers if you take my
point

 

[Mike Hibbert]

wafflycat wrote:
>
> "Sniper8052" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:58:40 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>>
>>> "Sniper8052" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Sniper8052" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I fail to see why other road users, including
>>>>>> pedestrians, should have to suffer their bullish behavior because
>>>>>> 'they'
>>>>>> choose to behave like louts once a month.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
>>>>> behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, helen s
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who
>>>> breaks
>>>> the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what. If the group loosly
>>>> termed CM, which chooses not to acknowledge it acts as a group, feel
>>>> they
>>>> have something to protest, fine let them protest, but also let them
>>>> follow
>>>> the rules and laws set down for the normal function of the roads and
>>>> society. In my book two wrongs don't make a right and CM has on the
>>>> occasions I have seen them been little more than an unruly and loud mob
>>>> intent on being a pain in the backside to all and sundry. Whilst
>>>> this may
>>>> not be the intent of all those present enough of the riders present
>>>> this
>>>> behavior to tarnish all with the same brush.
>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent, I wonder how you'll go about getting all the motorists in
>>> London
>>> to provide advance notice of where they are going. After all, it may
>>> not be
>>> the intent of all those present in the rush-hour to be a PITA to all and
>>> sundry but shurely there are enough of them holding up everyone and
>>> breaking
>>> the law (jumping red lights... road rage... illegal parking... injure
>>> a few
>>> in accidents etc) to tarnish all with the same brush?
>>>
>>> I have no problem with those who break the law (whatever mode of
>>> transport)
>>> being brought to book. What I do have a problem with is the singling
>>> out of
>>> cyclists who apparently cause a problem once a month, when gridlock is
>>> achieved and laws broken on a daily basis by those travelling in motor
>>> vehicles. It smacks of picking on a minority group which is an easy
>>> target.
>>>
>>> Cheers, helen s
>>
>>
>> The difference is that CM are doing something illegal as a cohesive body
>> where the motorists are not.
>
>
> So hundreds of motorists all travelling down the same road at the same
> time are not a cohesive body, but if cyclists they are?
>

You seem to be deliberately missing the point here. Hundreds of people
who are merely driving along a road at the same time does not constitute
a cohesive body. It's just commuting. Just in the same way that in
China hundreds of people on a bike are just commuting. If you organise
hundreds of cyclists then that does act as a cohesive body, whether you
like it or not.

>
>> Certainly on any given day one can find
>> numerous examples of individual drivers flouting the traffic laws; and on
>> occasion groups of drivers use their vehicles to protest fuel taxes etc.
>
>
> They have a leader, CM has no leader anymore than said motorists
> blocking the road in the rush hour.
>
>
>> However even these manage to tell the police and public in the
>> majority of
>> cases where and when they will be protesting.
>> I don't think it's picking on a vulnerable group to ask CM when riding
>> as a
>> group to behave in a responsible manner.
>
>
> So why not do the same for all motorists driving in a group in the rush
> hour?

Thats what the highway code and the Traffic Police are there for.

>> No one is suggesting that all
>> cyclists are included in this requirement, or that cyclists cannot freely
>> ride where they wish as a group.
>
>
> That is *exactly* what is being suggested.
>
>> The requirement is that if the group acts
>> as a procession, it must be organised as such with a planned and notified
>> route etc.
>
>
> Rush hour drivers?

Not a organised group!

>> This is the culmination of actions, not the start.
>
>
> Rush hour drivers - the culmination of actions - not the start.
>
> As for web sites - there are a myriad of motoring web sites....

I'm as much for better facilities, routes, safety etc for cyclist as the
next man - or woman in your case Helen ;o) but you are trying to compare
apples and oranges here.

 

[Jon is Away!]

Michael MacClancy wrote:
> There's a discussion of it here:
>
> http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=559307

Which doesn't fill me with confidence in Google Answers. A taser "sends
a current
equivalent to about 50,000 volts" apparently. I can forgive the
pre-GCSE standard of English as the author is probably not a native
speaker, but a discussion of detonation where the author confuses
current and voltage is not a good one.

Further questions:

Since the TASER (AIUI) causes localised muscle contractions between the
prongs of the dart (I'm assuming it doesn't rely on the subject being
earthed), and dangerous current would be in that location. The use of a
taser on a suspected bomb-belt wearer would be fine assuming the
marksmen was capable of hitting the back.

As one correspondant pointed out. A badly aimed bullet is just as
likely to trigger the "highly unstable" bombs used on 7/7. The
difference being that if you've f*cked up and got the wrong man. At
least with a taser, you get a chance to apologise to his face!

Not attacking you Michael. I just don't like spurious junk of this
level being presented as "authoritative".

Jon