Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.

[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]

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ambrose Nankivell <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

But mostly they're chasing stolen cars, where the mere precence of the
police car causes the chase in the first place. Which is better: a
stolen car not being recovered, or an innocent pedestrian or driver
being hit by a speeding car, be it the pursued or (quite often) the
pursuer?

The main people who benefit from high-speed car chases are testosterone
fueled police drivers. You only have to watch them shouting ``Go! Go!
Go!'' at each other whenever they decide to show off their driving
skills on the telly so see it's toys for the boys. Having high
performance cars cruising looking for stolen high performance cars, so
they can kick off a chase on urban streets, is the stuff of Playstations
and should stay there.

ian

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

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.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In news:[email protected],
Ian G Batten <[email protected]> typed:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ambrose Nankivell <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But mostly they're chasing stolen cars, where the mere precence of the
> police car causes the chase in the first place. Which is better: a
> stolen car not being recovered, or an innocent pedestrian or driver
> being hit by a speeding car, be it the pursued or (quite often) the
> pursuer?

Well, mostly they're not, because most times I see a police car going at
speed, there's no stolen car in front of it. I doubt they're all on their
way to chasing stolen cars, as well. But IANAPoliceDispatcher, so I'll stop
arguing this point.

A

 

[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?

 

[Dave J]

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.


--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[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.

 

[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]