Times article

[Squashme]

On 5 Jan, 00:02, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers
> >>currently have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone
> >>(and I'm not sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite
> >>your odd claim that they sometimes do).
> > Gotcha? See:-
> >http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/front page/printlarge8019.html
>
> Do you not know the difference between *criminal* violence and acts of
> lawful war conducted in the defence of unlawfully-invaded territory?

How did we grab the Falklands in the first place, Mr Nugent?

And in war there should be proportionality. Sinking a cruiser with
hundreds of sailors on it in the South Atlantic was a disproportionate
escalation, for a war that was like "two bald men fighting over a
comb" (Borges).

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <mkl*[email protected]>, David Damerell wrote:
>Quoting Tim Steele <[email protected]>:
>>Have you read this astonishing article?
>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece
>
>The CTC say;
>
>Should another article like this appear in the Times, or any other
>newspaper, we will seek legal advice about bringing a private prosecution
>against the author. Journalists must recognise that it is not acceptable
>to incite violence against cyclists, even if they have nothing
>interesting to write about and a deadline to meet.
>
>I wrote back to enquire why they planned to wait for _another_ incitement
>to murder their members, if they're willing to do it at all.

I'll be interested to hear what they say, but my guess would be because
the second time they can say "no-one who saw the reaction last time could
possibly excuse this as a misjudged piece of humour", but they think it's
enough to introduce reasonable doubt about whether he actually intended to
incite any of his readers into taking action as a defense this time.

 

[JNugent]

Squashme wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Squashme wrote:
>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers
>>>>currently have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone
>>>>(and I'm not sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite
>>>>your odd claim that they sometimes do).

>>>Gotcha? See:-
>>>http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/front page/printlarge8019.html

>>Do you not know the difference between *criminal* violence and acts of
>>lawful war conducted in the defence of unlawfully-invaded territory?

> How did we grab the Falklands in the first place, Mr Nugent?

Oh, grow up!

> And in war there should be proportionality. Sinking a cruiser with
> hundreds of sailors on it in the South Atlantic was a disproportionate
> escalation, for a war that was like "two bald men fighting over a
> comb" (Borges).

Yeah, right.

Take it to the United Nations.

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 5 Jan, 12:05, Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5 Jan, 00:02, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Squashme wrote:
> > > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers
> > >>currently have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone
> > >>(and I'm not sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite
> > >>your odd claim that they sometimes do).
> > > Gotcha? See:-
> > >http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/front page/printlarge8019.html
>
> > Do you not know the difference between *criminal* violence and acts of
> > lawful war conducted in the defence of unlawfully-invaded territory?
>
> How did we grab the Falklands in the first place, Mr Nugent?
>
> And in war there should be proportionality. Sinking a cruiser with
> hundreds of sailors on it in the South Atlantic was a disproportionate
> escalation, for a war that was like "two bald men fighting over a
> comb" (Borges).


Are you an Idiot? Of course we should have sunk the Belgrano- it was a
potential threat to our forces. This is war, not tiddlywinks. Do you
think they wouldn't have attacked the Invincible or the Hermes if they
had the chance? As it was two torpedos and the Argentine Navy ran for
home, so it was worth it to keep them out the way.

 

[Squashme]

On 5 Jan, 21:31, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5 Jan, 12:05, Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5 Jan, 00:02, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Squashme wrote:
> > > > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers
> > > >>currently have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone
> > > >>(and I'm not sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite
> > > >>your odd claim that they sometimes do).
> > > > Gotcha? See:-
> > > >http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/front page/printlarge8019.html
>
> > > Do you not know the difference between *criminal* violence and acts of
> > > lawful war conducted in the defence of unlawfully-invaded territory?
>
> > How did we grab the Falklands in the first place, Mr Nugent?
>
> > And in war there should be proportionality. Sinking a cruiser with
> > hundreds of sailors on it in the South Atlantic was a disproportionate
> > escalation, for a war that was like "two bald men fighting over a
> > comb" (Borges).
>
> Are you an Idiot? Of course we should have sunk the Belgrano- it was a
> potential threat to our forces. This is war, not tiddlywinks. Do you
> think they wouldn't have attacked the Invincible or the Hermes if they
> had the chance? As it was two torpedos and the Argentine Navy ran for
> home, so it was worth it to keep them out the way.

And so it goes. The war killed over 900 people in a conflict over
islands with a population of about 3000. And the majority of people in
Britain did not know where the islands were, or who the islanders
were, or even what colour they were.

Britain was more sensible over handing Hong Kong over to those
dreadful Chinese Communists:-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19439989/

 

[JNugent]

Sir Jeremy wrote:
> On 5 Jan, 12:05, Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 5 Jan, 00:02, JNugent <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Squashme wrote:
>>>
>>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers
>>>>>currently have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone
>>>>>(and I'm not sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite
>>>>>your odd claim that they sometimes do).
>>>>
>>>>Gotcha? See:-
>>>>http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/front page/printlarge8019.html
>>
>>>Do you not know the difference between *criminal* violence and acts of
>>>lawful war conducted in the defence of unlawfully-invaded territory?
>>
>>How did we grab the Falklands in the first place, Mr Nugent?

>>And in war there should be proportionality. Sinking a cruiser with
>>hundreds of sailors on it in the South Atlantic was a disproportionate
>>escalation, for a war that was like "two bald men fighting over a
>>comb" (Borges).

> Are you an Idiot? Of course we should have sunk the Belgrano- it was a
> potential threat to our forces. This is war, not tiddlywinks. Do you
> think they wouldn't have attacked the Invincible or the Hermes if they
> had the chance? As it was two torpedos and the Argentine Navy ran for
> home, so it was worth it to keep them out the way.

You have dignified his idiotic post with an intelligent reply.

 

[JNugent]

Squashme wrote:
> On 5 Jan, 21:31, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 5 Jan, 12:05, Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 5 Jan, 00:02, JNugent <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Squashme wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers
>>>>>>currently have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone
>>>>>>(and I'm not sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite
>>>>>>your odd claim that they sometimes do).
>>>>>
>>>>>Gotcha? See:-
>>>>>http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/front page/printlarge8019.html
>>
>>>>Do you not know the difference between *criminal* violence and acts of
>>>>lawful war conducted in the defence of unlawfully-invaded territory?
>>
>>>How did we grab the Falklands in the first place, Mr Nugent?
>>
>>>And in war there should be proportionality. Sinking a cruiser with
>>>hundreds of sailors on it in the South Atlantic was a disproportionate
>>>escalation, for a war that was like "two bald men fighting over a
>>>comb" (Borges).
>>
>>Are you an Idiot? Of course we should have sunk the Belgrano- it was a
>>potential threat to our forces. This is war, not tiddlywinks. Do you
>>think they wouldn't have attacked the Invincible or the Hermes if they
>>had the chance? As it was two torpedos and the Argentine Navy ran for
>>home, so it was worth it to keep them out the way.
>
>
> And so it goes. The war killed over 900 people in a conflict over
> islands with a population of about 3000. And the majority of people in
> Britain did not know where the islands were, or who the islanders
> were, or even what colour they were.
>
> Britain was more sensible over handing Hong Kong over to those
> dreadful Chinese Communists:-
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19439989/

That was legally unavoidable and was catered for by a lawful treaty.

Spot the difference.

 

[Mark T]

> And so it goes. The war killed over 900 people in a conflict over
> islands with a population of about 3000. And the majority of people in
> Britain did not know where the islands were, or who the islanders
> were, or even what colour they were.

This misses the point. The Falkland Islanders knew where the islands were;
knew who they were; and knew what nationality they were.

This article explains a rather confusing subject:
<url:www.hoover.org/publications/digest/10675521.html>

 

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 01:14, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 5 Jan, 21:31, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>On 5 Jan, 12:05, Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>On 5 Jan, 00:02, JNugent <[email protected]>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>Squashme wrote:
>
> >>>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers
> >>>>>>currently have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone
> >>>>>>(and I'm not sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite
> >>>>>>your odd claim that they sometimes do).
>
> >>>>>Gotcha? See:-
> >>>>>http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/front page/printlarge8019.html
>
> >>>>Do you not know the difference between *criminal* violence and acts of
> >>>>lawful war conducted in the defence of unlawfully-invaded territory?
>
> >>>How did we grab the Falklands in the first place, Mr Nugent?
>
> >>>And in war there should be proportionality. Sinking a cruiser with
> >>>hundreds of sailors on it in the South Atlantic was a disproportionate
> >>>escalation, for a war that was like "two bald men fighting over a
> >>>comb" (Borges).
>
> >>Are you an Idiot? Of course we should have sunk the Belgrano- it was a
> >>potential threat to our forces. This is war, not tiddlywinks. Do you
> >>think they wouldn't have attacked the Invincible or the Hermes if they
> >>had the chance? As it was two torpedos and the Argentine Navy ran for
> >>home, so it was worth it to keep them out the way.
>
> > And so it goes. The war killed over 900 people in a conflict over
> > islands with a population of about 3000. And the majority of people in
> > Britain did not know where the islands were, or who the islanders
> > were, or even what colour they were.
>
> > Britain was more sensible over handing Hong Kong over to those
> > dreadful Chinese Communists:-
>
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19439989/
>
> That was legally unavoidable and was catered for by a lawful treaty.
>
> Spot the difference.

Difference 1:-

They were not "our people" mostly?

Difference 2:-

The Chinese Army?

Difference 3:-

No bottomless supply of American munitions and other support?

Difference 4:-

No Thatcher facing meltdown?

 

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 01:13, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Sir Jeremy wrote:
> > On 5 Jan, 12:05, Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>On 5 Jan, 00:02, JNugent <[email protected]>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>Squashme wrote:
>
> >>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>>Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers
> >>>>>currently have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone
> >>>>>(and I'm not sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite
> >>>>>your odd claim that they sometimes do).
>
> >>>>Gotcha? See:-
> >>>>http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/front page/printlarge8019.html
>
> >>>Do you not know the difference between *criminal* violence and acts of
> >>>lawful war conducted in the defence of unlawfully-invaded territory?
>
> >>How did we grab the Falklands in the first place, Mr Nugent?
> >>And in war there should be proportionality. Sinking a cruiser with
> >>hundreds of sailors on it in the South Atlantic was a disproportionate
> >>escalation, for a war that was like "two bald men fighting over a
> >>comb" (Borges).
> > Are you an Idiot? Of course we should have sunk the Belgrano- it was a
> > potential threat to our forces. This is war, not tiddlywinks. Do you
> > think they wouldn't have attacked the Invincible or the Hermes if they
> > had the chance? As it was two torpedos and the Argentine Navy ran for
> > home, so it was worth it to keep them out the way.
>
> You have dignified his idiotic post with an intelligent reply.

Why not? I do it for you. Most don't bother. You should support your
friends.

 

[Simon Brooke]

Mark T wrote:

>> And so it goes. The war killed over 900 people in a conflict over
>> islands with a population of about 3000. And the majority of people in
>> Britain did not know where the islands were, or who the islanders
>> were, or even what colour they were.
>
> This misses the point. The Falkland Islanders knew where the islands
> were; knew who they were; and knew what nationality they were.
>
> This article explains a rather confusing subject:
> <url:www.hoover.org/publications/digest/10675521.html>

There are parts of Argentina where the everyday spoken language is Welsh. So
what? Should those parts be ceded to Wales and elect members to the
Assembly in Cardiff?

Yes, the Falkland Islanders thought of themselves as 'British', and it's
because of that that friends of mine died - one when his helicopter was
shot down, one in that dreadful troop-ship fire. Was it worth it? The cost
of the war, in simple monetary terms and ignoring the cost in lives, was
vastly higher than the cost of resettling every last one of the Falkland
Islanders back to Britain.

I have no quarrel with the Falkland Islanders choosing to think of
themselves as whatever they like. But Britain, as a body politic, has to
make up its mind whether we're prepared to continue to pay out the - still
vastly uneconomic - cost of defending them. If they want to be independent
and pay their own defence bills, that's fine, I see no objection. But if
they want to be British, then Britain as a whole has a right to say, OK,
this we will defend, and this we won't. And strategically and
geo-politically it makes no sense for us to continue to defend a few
sheep-farms in the South Atlantic.

If it's a matter of defending exploitable oil reserves, then that is
conceivably a different matter.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

my other car is #<Subr-Car: #5d480>
;; This joke is not funny in emacs.

 

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 09:52, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:
> > And so it goes. The war killed over 900 people in a conflict over
> > islands with a population of about 3000. And the majority of people in
> > Britain did not know where the islands were, or who the islanders
> > were, or even what colour they were.
>
> This misses the point. The Falkland Islanders knew where the islands were;

Under their feet, and 300 miles (483 km) from the coast of Argentina
(Port Stanley to London 7877 miles, and 12677 km)

> knew who they were;

I expect that the Diego Garcians knew who they were too. They weren't
white, and they stood in the way of the US and its poodle GB:-

"Until 1971, Diego Garcia had a native population of 2000
individuals , known as the Chagossians (or Ilois), which was composed
of the descendants of East Indian workers and African slaves who had
been brought to the island in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
to work on the coconut and copra plantations. They lived in three
settlements: East Point (the main settlement on the eastern rim of the
atoll), Minni Minni (2.75 mi or 4.5 km north of East Point), and
Pointe Marianne (on the western rim). The islanders were forcibly
depopulated to the Seychelles and then to Mauritius amid starvation
and intimidation tactics by the UK government. Ever since their
expulsion, the Chagossians have continually asserted their right to
return to Diego Garcia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia


and knew what nationality they were.

Not totally in 1982:-
"The inhabitants of the islands are full British citizens (since a
1983 Act) and under Argentine Law are eligible for Argentine
citizenship." (Wikipedia)

1983, and the war was when?

See:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationality_(Falkland_Islands)_Act_1983

>
> This article explains a rather confusing subject:
> <url:www.hoover.org/publications/digest/10675521.html>

And this may shed light on the provenance of the article:-

"The Hoover Institution is influential in the American conservative
and libertarian movements, and the Institution has long been a place
of scholarship for high profile conservatives with government
experience." (Wikipedia)

"The United Kingdom itself might again become part of France, for if
one can turn the clock back two centuries, no matter what has happened
in the meantime, why not five hundred years, or a thousand?" (from the
article)

Or two thousand years? In the light of their attitude to ancient and
modern land theft, I wonder how the Hoover Institution views the
rights of the Palestinians, as opposed to those of the Israelis?

Who then are the Argentinians and who the Falklanders?

It is so easy for the beneficiaries of old crimes to lecture the
victims on being mature and growing up. It is in the interest of the
beneficiaries that the victims forgive and forget.

"Whose is this estate?"
"It's mine."
"How did you get it?"
"It was my father's."
"How did he get it?"
"He fought for it."
"Very well then. I'll fight you for it!"

 

[JNugent]

Squashme wrote:
> On 6 Jan, 01:14, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Squashme wrote:
>>
>>>On 5 Jan, 21:31, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>On 5 Jan, 12:05, Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On 5 Jan, 00:02, JNugent <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Squashme wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers
>>>>>>>>currently have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone
>>>>>>>>(and I'm not sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite
>>>>>>>>your odd claim that they sometimes do).
>>
>>>>>>>Gotcha? See:-
>>>>>>>http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/front page/printlarge8019.html
>>
>>>>>>Do you not know the difference between *criminal* violence and acts of
>>>>>>lawful war conducted in the defence of unlawfully-invaded territory?
>>
>>>>>How did we grab the Falklands in the first place, Mr Nugent?
>>
>>>>>And in war there should be proportionality. Sinking a cruiser with
>>>>>hundreds of sailors on it in the South Atlantic was a disproportionate
>>>>>escalation, for a war that was like "two bald men fighting over a
>>>>>comb" (Borges).
>>
>>>>Are you an Idiot? Of course we should have sunk the Belgrano- it was a
>>>>potential threat to our forces. This is war, not tiddlywinks. Do you
>>>>think they wouldn't have attacked the Invincible or the Hermes if they
>>>>had the chance? As it was two torpedos and the Argentine Navy ran for
>>>>home, so it was worth it to keep them out the way.
>>
>>>And so it goes. The war killed over 900 people in a conflict over
>>>islands with a population of about 3000. And the majority of people in
>>>Britain did not know where the islands were, or who the islanders
>>>were, or even what colour they were.
>>
>>>Britain was more sensible over handing Hong Kong over to those
>>>dreadful Chinese Communists:-
>>
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19439989/
>>
>>That was legally unavoidable and was catered for by a lawful treaty.
>>
>>Spot the difference.

> Difference 1:-

> They were not "our people" mostly?

> Difference 2:-

> The Chinese Army?

> Difference 3:-

> No bottomless supply of American munitions and other support?

> Difference 4:-

> No Thatcher facing meltdown?

The main difference, I suggest, is that the whole issue of the
Falkland Islands is nothing to do with transport in the UK, and
especially not cycling. It's just one of your
twenty-five-year-simmering obsessions (and I suspect that there are
many more where that one came from).

But to reiterate the relevant points:

The Falkland Islands were illegally invaded by Argentina. The UK had
every right (and every duty) to eject Argentina from possession.

Hong Kong (or at least, most of it) was held under a lease. When the
lease expired, possession reverted to the landlords. The political
beliefs of the landlords were, and remain, irrelevant.

The cases could not be more different from each other. And neither of
them could be more irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Squashme]

On 6 Jan, 16:42, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 6 Jan, 01:14, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Squashme wrote:
>
> >>>On 5 Jan, 21:31, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>On 5 Jan, 12:05, Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>>On 5 Jan, 00:02, JNugent <[email protected]>
> >>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Squashme wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>Yes, but that's getting rather contrived, isn't it? News papers
> >>>>>>>>currently have no business inciting criminal violence against anyone
> >>>>>>>>(and I'm not sure they ever really do, not even during war, despite
> >>>>>>>>your odd claim that they sometimes do).
>
> >>>>>>>Gotcha? See:-
> >>>>>>>http://www.bl.uk/learning/images/front page/printlarge8019.html
>
> >>>>>>Do you not know the difference between *criminal* violence and acts of
> >>>>>>lawful war conducted in the defence of unlawfully-invaded territory?
>
> >>>>>How did we grab the Falklands in the first place, Mr Nugent?
>
> >>>>>And in war there should be proportionality. Sinking a cruiser with
> >>>>>hundreds of sailors on it in the South Atlantic was a disproportionate
> >>>>>escalation, for a war that was like "two bald men fighting over a
> >>>>>comb" (Borges).
>
> >>>>Are you an Idiot? Of course we should have sunk the Belgrano- it was a
> >>>>potential threat to our forces. This is war, not tiddlywinks. Do you
> >>>>think they wouldn't have attacked the Invincible or the Hermes if they
> >>>>had the chance? As it was two torpedos and the Argentine Navy ran for
> >>>>home, so it was worth it to keep them out the way.
>
> >>>And so it goes. The war killed over 900 people in a conflict over
> >>>islands with a population of about 3000. And the majority of people in
> >>>Britain did not know where the islands were, or who the islanders
> >>>were, or even what colour they were.
>
> >>>Britain was more sensible over handing Hong Kong over to those
> >>>dreadful Chinese Communists:-
>
> >>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19439989/
>
> >>That was legally unavoidable and was catered for by a lawful treaty.
>
> >>Spot the difference.
> > Difference 1:-
> > They were not "our people" mostly?
> > Difference 2:-
> > The Chinese Army?
> > Difference 3:-
> > No bottomless supply of American munitions and other support?
> > Difference 4:-
> > No Thatcher facing meltdown?
>
> The main difference, I suggest, is that the whole issue of the
> Falkland Islands is nothing to do with transport in the UK, and
> especially not cycling. It's just one of your
> twenty-five-year-simmering obsessions (and I suspect that there are
> many more where that one came from).
>
> But to reiterate the relevant points:
>
> The Falkland Islands were illegally invaded by Argentina. The UK had
> every right (and every duty) to eject Argentina from possession.
>
> Hong Kong (or at least, most of it) was held under a lease. When the
> lease expired, possession reverted to the landlords. The political
> beliefs of the landlords were, and remain, irrelevant.
>
> The cases could not be more different from each other. And neither of
> them could be more irrelevant to this thread.

Will you stop mentioning the War?

 

[Mark T]

> "The United Kingdom itself might again become part of France, for if
> one can turn the clock back two centuries, no matter what has happened
> in the meantime, why not five hundred years, or a thousand?" (from the
> article)
>
> Or two thousand years? In the light of their attitude to ancient and
> modern land theft, I wonder how the Hoover Institution views the
> rights of the Palestinians, as opposed to those of the Israelis?
>
> Who then are the Argentinians and who the Falklanders?

Read the quote in context and it'll make more sense to you. I'll be
leaving this thread now.

 

[Mark T]

> There are parts of Argentina where the everyday spoken language is
> Welsh. So what? Should those parts be ceded to Wales and elect members
> to the Assembly in Cardiff?

Should we ask irrelevent rhetorical questions?

 

[Mark]

On 05 Jan 2008 12:25:04 +0000 (GMT), [email protected] (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

>In article <mkl*[email protected]>, David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Tim Steele <[email protected]>:
>>>Have you read this astonishing article?
>>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3097464.ece
>>
>>The CTC say;
>>
>>Should another article like this appear in the Times, or any other
>>newspaper, we will seek legal advice about bringing a private prosecution
>>against the author. Journalists must recognise that it is not acceptable
>>to incite violence against cyclists, even if they have nothing
>>interesting to write about and a deadline to meet.
>>
>>I wrote back to enquire why they planned to wait for _another_ incitement
>>to murder their members, if they're willing to do it at all.
>
>I'll be interested to hear what they say, but my guess would be because
>the second time they can say "no-one who saw the reaction last time could
>possibly excuse this as a misjudged piece of humour", but they think it's
>enough to introduce reasonable doubt about whether he actually intended to
>incite any of his readers into taking action as a defense this time.

But this isn't the first time. Clarkson and others have already
written similar violent ravings.

M.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Mark
[email protected] says...

> But this isn't the first time. Clarkson and others have already
> written similar violent ravings.
>
From what I've seen Clarkson doesn't actually incite others to do the
things that he claims he will do.

 

[Mark]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:40:05 -0000, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Mark
>[email protected] says...
>
>> But this isn't the first time. Clarkson and others have already
>> written similar violent ravings.
>>
>From what I've seen Clarkson doesn't actually incite others to do the
>things that he claims he will do.

Not much difference IMHO. Dehumanising the cyclist and planting the
ideas in deranged minds is what does the real damage.

M.

 

[Kenneth MacKenzie]

Rob Morley <[email protected]> writes:

> From what I've seen Clarkson doesn't actually incite others to do the
> things that he claims he will do.

It appears that his latest brilliant idea was to publish his bank
account numbers in the Sun in order to prove that the recent concerns
about missing personal data in were a "palaver about nothing". As a
result of this one of his readers had now has set up a monthly 500
pound direct debit from Mr Clarkson's account to a diabetes charity.
He says "The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data
Protection Act and they cannot stop it from happening again."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7174760.stm