Another killer driver smashes a shop and kills a boy.

[Doug[_3_]]

Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8684999.stm

"Boy trapped between car and shop front dies

The crash scene in Cape Hill, Smethwick

The boy was trapped between the car and the shop

A 15-year-old boy who was trapped against a shop front in Smethwick by
a crashed car has died of his injuries.

The crash happened on Saturday morning in Cape Hill, police said.

The boy was airlifted to hospital where he died at 1730 BST. A female
was also taken to hospital with serious injuries, West Midlands Police
said.

The driver, a 28-year-old man from Evesham, Worcestershire, was
arrested and bailed. Anyone with information has been asked to call
the police."

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:33:53 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
> wrote this:-

>Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
>compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8684999.stm

I'm sure the unacceptable face of motoring will be along soon to
tell us that a bike would cause just as much damage.






--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[webreader]

On May 16, 6:33*pm, Doug > wrote:
> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
> compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8684999.stm
>
> "Boy trapped between car and shop front dies
>
> The crash scene in Cape Hill, Smethwick
>
> The boy was trapped between the car and the shop
>
> A 15-year-old boy who was trapped against a shop front in Smethwick by
> a crashed car has died of his injuries.
>
> The crash happened on Saturday morning in Cape Hill, police said.
>
> The boy was airlifted to hospital where he died at 1730 BST. A female
> was also taken to hospital with serious injuries, West Midlands Police
> said.
>
> The driver, a 28-year-old man from Evesham, Worcestershire, was
> arrested and bailed. Anyone with information has been asked to call
> the police."
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Yet again Doug changes his saved text slightly & tells us that a car
can do more damage than a bicycle.
Doug the person who does not understand physics has actually hit on
something that is mostly true, cars can cause more damage than
bicycles due to their extra weight & speed.

No doubt Dougs usual followers will be along to quote some lie that
people have said otherwise.

But to help Doug get the message accross here are a few of his posts.

10 April 2010 Doug posts
Once again demonstrating the sheer destructive force of a car
compared to the much maligned bicycle

May 2nd 2010 Doug posts
Once again demonstrating the sheer destructive force of a car
compared to that of a bicycle.

Feb 27 2008 Doug posts
just shows how much appalling damage can be caused by a car compared
to that of
a bicycle

May 23rd 2009 Doug posts
sheer destructive force and danger of a car compared with the
relatively minor danger of a bicycle

Dec 27th 2008 Doug posts
demonstrating the destructive force of a car which could never be
equalled by a bicycle

Jan 18th 2009 Doug posts
destructive force of a car compared to the relatively harmless
bicycle.

Feb 9 2009 Doug posts
destructive force of a car compared to that of the innocuous but much
maligned bicycle.

Feb 24 2009 Doug posts
once again demonstrating the sheer destructive force and danger of a
car compared to that of a
bicycle.

July 22 2009 Doug posts
destructive force and danger of a car when compared to the puny force
of a bicycle.

July 25 2009 Doug posts
destructive force of a car compared to that of a bicycle

Dec 8 2009 Doug posts
destructive force of a car compared to that of a mere bicycle,

WSR

[Tony Dragon]

webreader wrote:
> On May 16, 6:33 pm, Doug > wrote:
>> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
>> compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8684999.stm
>>
>> "Boy trapped between car and shop front dies
>>
>> The crash scene in Cape Hill, Smethwick
>>
>> The boy was trapped between the car and the shop
>>
>> A 15-year-old boy who was trapped against a shop front in Smethwick by
>> a crashed car has died of his injuries.
>>
>> The crash happened on Saturday morning in Cape Hill, police said.
>>
>> The boy was airlifted to hospital where he died at 1730 BST. A female
>> was also taken to hospital with serious injuries, West Midlands Police
>> said.
>>
>> The driver, a 28-year-old man from Evesham, Worcestershire, was
>> arrested and bailed. Anyone with information has been asked to call
>> the police."
>>
>> --
>> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> Yet again Doug changes his saved text slightly & tells us that a car
> can do more damage than a bicycle.
> Doug the person who does not understand physics has actually hit on
> something that is mostly true, cars can cause more damage than
> bicycles due to their extra weight & speed.
>
> No doubt Dougs usual followers will be along to quote some lie that
> people have said otherwise.

You were right, see the followup.


>
> But to help Doug get the message accross here are a few of his posts.
>
> 10 April 2010 Doug posts
> Once again demonstrating the sheer destructive force of a car
> compared to the much maligned bicycle
>
> May 2nd 2010 Doug posts
> Once again demonstrating the sheer destructive force of a car
> compared to that of a bicycle.
>
> Feb 27 2008 Doug posts
> just shows how much appalling damage can be caused by a car compared
> to that of
> a bicycle
>
> May 23rd 2009 Doug posts
> sheer destructive force and danger of a car compared with the
> relatively minor danger of a bicycle
>
> Dec 27th 2008 Doug posts
> demonstrating the destructive force of a car which could never be
> equalled by a bicycle
>
> Jan 18th 2009 Doug posts
> destructive force of a car compared to the relatively harmless
> bicycle.
>
> Feb 9 2009 Doug posts
> destructive force of a car compared to that of the innocuous but much
> maligned bicycle.
>
> Feb 24 2009 Doug posts
> once again demonstrating the sheer destructive force and danger of a
> car compared to that of a
> bicycle.
>
> July 22 2009 Doug posts
> destructive force and danger of a car when compared to the puny force
> of a bicycle.
>
> July 25 2009 Doug posts
> destructive force of a car compared to that of a bicycle
>
> Dec 8 2009 Doug posts
> destructive force of a car compared to that of a mere bicycle,
>
> WSR


--
Tony Dragon

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
> compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.

Plenty of places are safe Doug. 1 fatality in 120,000,000 miles driven
remember?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Derek geldard]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:02:47 +0100, David Hansen
> wrote:

>
>I'm sure the unacceptable face of motoring will be along soon to
>tell us that a bike would cause just as much damage.

Ah, fortelling the future now, cool.

Do you tell fortunes as well ?

You know **** all about it Hansen.

You've already admitted that England is a seperate far away country
about which you know little.

Derek

[Doug[_3_]]

On 16 May, 19:26, webreader > wrote:
> On May 16, 6:33*pm, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
> > compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8684999.stm
>
> > "Boy trapped between car and shop front dies
>
> > The crash scene in Cape Hill, Smethwick
>
> > The boy was trapped between the car and the shop
>
> > A 15-year-old boy who was trapped against a shop front in Smethwick by
> > a crashed car has died of his injuries.
>
> > The crash happened on Saturday morning in Cape Hill, police said.
>
> > The boy was airlifted to hospital where he died at 1730 BST. A female
> > was also taken to hospital with serious injuries, West Midlands Police
> > said.
>
> > The driver, a 28-year-old man from Evesham, Worcestershire, was
> > arrested and bailed. Anyone with information has been asked to call
> > the police."
>
> > --
> > UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> Yet again Doug changes his saved text slightly & tells us that a car
> can do more damage than a bicycle.
> Doug the person who does not understand physics has actually hit on
> something that is mostly true, cars can cause more damage than
> bicycles due to their extra weight & speed.
>
> No doubt Dougs usual followers will be along to quote some lie that
> people have said otherwise.
>
> But to help Doug get the message accross here are a few of his posts.
>
> 10 April 2010 Doug posts
> * * * * Once again demonstrating the sheer destructive force of a car
> compared to the much maligned bicycle
>
> May 2nd 2010 Doug posts
> * * * * Once again demonstrating the sheer destructive force of a car
> compared to that of a bicycle.
>
> Feb 27 2008 Doug posts
> * * * * just shows how much appalling damage can be caused by a car compared
> to that of
> a bicycle
>
> May 23rd 2009 Doug posts
> * * * * sheer destructive force and danger of a car compared with the
> relatively minor danger of a bicycle
>
> Dec 27th 2008 Doug posts
> * * * * demonstrating the destructive force of a car which could never be
> equalled by a bicycle
>
> Jan 18th 2009 Doug posts
> * * * * destructive force of a car compared to the relatively harmless
> bicycle.
>
> Feb 9 2009 Doug posts
> * * * * destructive force of a car compared to that of the innocuous but much
> maligned bicycle.
>
> Feb 24 2009 Doug posts
> * * * * once again demonstrating the sheer destructive force and danger of a
> car compared to that of a
> bicycle.
>
> July 22 2009 Doug posts
> * * * * destructive force and danger of a car when compared to the puny force
> of a bicycle.
>
> July 25 2009 Doug posts
> * * * * destructive force of a car compared to that of a bicycle
>
> Dec 8 2009 Doug posts
> * * * * destructive force of a car compared to that of a mere bicycle,
>
Wow! Someone has been doing thier research. OK then, as long as the
physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
much more restricted than bicycles.

Incidentally, what if the dead boy had been riding a bike on the
pavement? If cyclists think they are safer on pavements, the main
reason for them being there, they had better think again. Nowhere is
safe from these killer drivers. If you want to walk or cycle anywhere
then look out! You could be next, no matter how well you are trained
or experienced!

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 16 May, 20:26, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
> > compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.
>
> Plenty of places are safe Doug. *1 fatality in 120,000,000 miles driven
> remember?
>
Let me see, population 60,000,000. Does this mean 1 person killed
every two miles driven?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Jim A]

On 05/17/2010 07:56 AM, Doug wrote:
> On 16 May, 20:26, "The Medway Handyman"<davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
>>> compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.
>>
>> Plenty of places are safe Doug. 1 fatality in 120,000,000 miles driven
>> remember?
>>
> Let me see, population 60,000,000. Does this mean 1 person killed
> every two miles driven?

No. That stat is supposed to be per person or perhaps per vehicle
journey - it's not stated which so is at best questionable and at worst
dubious.

I'm not going to play the 'my stats are better than your stats' game
myself - life is too short! :-)

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 16 May, 19:26, webreader > wrote:
>> On May 16, 6:33 pm, Doug > wrote:
>>
>> > Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
>> > compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.
>>
>> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8684999.stm
>>
>> > "Boy trapped between car and shop front dies
>>
<news report snipped>
>>
>> Yet again Doug changes his saved text slightly & tells us that a car
>> can do more damage than a bicycle.
>> Doug the person who does not understand physics has actually hit on
>> something that is mostly true, cars can cause more damage than
>> bicycles due to their extra weight & speed.
>>
>> No doubt Dougs usual followers will be along to quote some lie that
>> people have said otherwise.
>>
>> But to help Doug get the message accross here are a few of his posts.
>>
<list of Doug's repetitions snipped>
>>
> Wow! Someone has been doing thier research. OK then, as long as the
> physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
> much more restricted than bicycles.

~In what way are cars not more restricted than bicycles Doug?

> Incidentally, what if the dead boy had been riding a bike on the
> pavement?

More to the point, if the boy had been killed by a cyclist would you be
shouting quite so loudly Doug?

[Doug[_3_]]

On 17 May, 09:01, "Brimstone" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...> On 16 May, 19:26, webreader > wrote:
> >> On May 16, 6:33 pm, Doug > wrote:
>
> >> > Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
> >> > compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.
>
> >> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8684999.stm
>
> >> > "Boy trapped between car and shop front dies
>
> <news report snipped>
>
> >> Yet again Doug changes his saved text slightly & tells us that a car
> >> can do more damage than a bicycle.
> >> Doug the person who does not understand physics has actually hit on
> >> something that is mostly true, cars can cause more damage than
> >> bicycles due to their extra weight & speed.
>
> >> No doubt Dougs usual followers will be along to quote some lie that
> >> people have said otherwise.
>
> >> But to help Doug get the message accross here are a few of his posts.
>
> <list of Doug's repetitions snipped>
>
>
>
> > Wow! Someone has been doing thier research. OK then, as long as the
> > physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
> > much more restricted than bicycles.
>
> ~In what way are cars not more restricted than bicycles Doug?
>
> > Incidentally, what if the dead boy had been riding a bike on the
> > pavement?
>
> More to the point, if the boy had been killed by a cyclist would you be
> shouting quite so loudly Doug?
>
Why do you always confine yourself to asking questions, Brim? Is it
because you are scared of revealing your own opinions here?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Derek C]

On 16 May, 18:33, Doug > wrote:
> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
> compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8684999.stm
>
> "Boy trapped between car and shop front dies
>
> The crash scene in Cape Hill, Smethwick
>
> The boy was trapped between the car and the shop
>
> A 15-year-old boy who was trapped against a shop front in Smethwick by
> a crashed car has died of his injuries.
>
> The crash happened on Saturday morning in Cape Hill, police said.
>
> The boy was airlifted to hospital where he died at 1730 BST. A female
> was also taken to hospital with serious injuries, West Midlands Police
> said.
>
> The driver, a 28-year-old man from Evesham, Worcestershire, was
> arrested and bailed. Anyone with information has been asked to call
> the police."
>
> --
Typical posting from Dugh, who now that he is no longer able to drive
and is reduced to riding an electric bike, takes every opportunity and
every excuse to attack those who are going about their lawful business
by driving cars and other vehicles!

Terrorists are people who set off bombs and deliberate shoot people,
BTW, although many pedestrians regard speeding and aggressive cyclists
who ride on footpaths as terrorists.

Derek C

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 17 May, 09:01, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...>
>> On 16 May, 19:26, webreader > wrote:
>> >> On May 16, 6:33 pm, Doug > wrote:
>>
>> >> > Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
>> >> > compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.
>>
>> >> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8684999.stm
>>
>> >> > "Boy trapped between car and shop front dies
>>
>> <news report snipped>
>>
>> >> Yet again Doug changes his saved text slightly & tells us that a car
>> >> can do more damage than a bicycle.
>> >> Doug the person who does not understand physics has actually hit on
>> >> something that is mostly true, cars can cause more damage than
>> >> bicycles due to their extra weight & speed.
>>
>> >> No doubt Dougs usual followers will be along to quote some lie that
>> >> people have said otherwise.
>>
>> >> But to help Doug get the message accross here are a few of his posts.
>>
>> <list of Doug's repetitions snipped>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Wow! Someone has been doing thier research. OK then, as long as the
>> > physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
>> > much more restricted than bicycles.
>>
>> ~In what way are cars not more restricted than bicycles Doug?
>>
>> > Incidentally, what if the dead boy had been riding a bike on the
>> > pavement?
>>
>> More to the point, if the boy had been killed by a cyclist would you be
>> shouting quite so loudly Doug?
>>
> Why do you always confine yourself to asking questions, Brim? Is it
> because you are scared of revealing your own opinions here?
>
So that's a "No, I would not be shouting if this poor boy had been killed by
a cyclist" is it Doug?

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
> compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8684999.stm
>
> "Boy trapped between car and shop front dies
>
> The crash scene in Cape Hill, Smethwick
>
> The boy was trapped between the car and the shop
>
> A 15-year-old boy who was trapped against a shop front in Smethwick by
> a crashed car has died of his injuries.
>
> The crash happened on Saturday morning in Cape Hill, police said.
>
> The boy was airlifted to hospital where he died at 1730 BST. A female
> was also taken to hospital with serious injuries, West Midlands Police
> said.
>
> The driver, a 28-year-old man from Evesham, Worcestershire, was
> arrested and bailed. Anyone with information has been asked to call
> the police."

This is God working in mysterious ways:
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/birmingham-news/2010/05/17/pals-mourn-crash-victim-joshua-97319-26462021/

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> OK then, as long as the
> physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
> much more restricted than bicycles.

er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.

Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
than bicycles?

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Ian[_9_]]

On 16 May, 19:02, David Hansen >
wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:33:53 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
> > wrote this:-
>
> >Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
> >compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8684999.stm
>
> I'm sure the unacceptable face of motoring will be along soon to
> tell us that a bike would cause just as much damage.

I'm happy to point out that cars are far better are getting patients
and medical staff to rural accident and emergency departments.

Ian

[Ian[_9_]]

On 17 May, 07:50, Derek Geldard > wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:02:47 +0100, David Hansen
>
> > wrote:
>
> >I'm sure the unacceptable face of motoring will be along soon to
> >tell us that a bike would cause just as much damage.
>
> Ah, fortelling the future now, cool.

The correct response to this type of post from Mr Hansen is

"Fascinating. Mind reading. Do go on."

Nice try

Ian

[Ret.[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 16 May, 19:26, webreader > wrote:
>> On May 16, 6:33 pm, Doug > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
>>> compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8684999.stm
>>
>>> "Boy trapped between car and shop front dies
>>
>>> The crash scene in Cape Hill, Smethwick
>>
>>> The boy was trapped between the car and the shop
>>
>>> A 15-year-old boy who was trapped against a shop front in Smethwick
>>> by a crashed car has died of his injuries.
>>
>>> The crash happened on Saturday morning in Cape Hill, police said.
>>
>>> The boy was airlifted to hospital where he died at 1730 BST. A
>>> female was also taken to hospital with serious injuries, West
>>> Midlands Police said.
>>
>>> The driver, a 28-year-old man from Evesham, Worcestershire, was
>>> arrested and bailed. Anyone with information has been asked to call
>>> the police."
>>
>>> --
>>> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>>
>> Yet again Doug changes his saved text slightly & tells us that a car
>> can do more damage than a bicycle.
>> Doug the person who does not understand physics has actually hit on
>> something that is mostly true, cars can cause more damage than
>> bicycles due to their extra weight & speed.
>>
>> No doubt Dougs usual followers will be along to quote some lie that
>> people have said otherwise.
>>
>> But to help Doug get the message accross here are a few of his posts.
>>
>> 10 April 2010 Doug posts
>> Once again demonstrating the sheer destructive force of a car
>> compared to the much maligned bicycle
>>
>> May 2nd 2010 Doug posts
>> Once again demonstrating the sheer destructive force of a car
>> compared to that of a bicycle.
>>
>> Feb 27 2008 Doug posts
>> just shows how much appalling damage can be caused by a car compared
>> to that of
>> a bicycle
>>
>> May 23rd 2009 Doug posts
>> sheer destructive force and danger of a car compared with the
>> relatively minor danger of a bicycle
>>
>> Dec 27th 2008 Doug posts
>> demonstrating the destructive force of a car which could never be
>> equalled by a bicycle
>>
>> Jan 18th 2009 Doug posts
>> destructive force of a car compared to the relatively harmless
>> bicycle.
>>
>> Feb 9 2009 Doug posts
>> destructive force of a car compared to that of the innocuous but much
>> maligned bicycle.
>>
>> Feb 24 2009 Doug posts
>> once again demonstrating the sheer destructive force and danger of a
>> car compared to that of a
>> bicycle.
>>
>> July 22 2009 Doug posts
>> destructive force and danger of a car when compared to the puny force
>> of a bicycle.
>>
>> July 25 2009 Doug posts
>> destructive force of a car compared to that of a bicycle
>>
>> Dec 8 2009 Doug posts
>> destructive force of a car compared to that of a mere bicycle,
>>
> Wow! Someone has been doing thier research. OK then, as long as the
> physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
> much more restricted than bicycles.

Cars *are* more restricted than bicycles you idiot. Do you have to pass a
test to use a bicycle on UK roads? Do you have to have a licence to use a
bicycle on UK roads? Do you have to have your bicycle tested annually for
road-worthiness? Do you have to take out insurance to use your bicycle on
UK roads? Do you have to purchase an annual excise licence for your bicycle?

Yes, cars can be dangerous, and occasionally people lose their lives in road
accidents involving cars - but that has to be weighed against the massive
benefits that cars has brought us.

--
Kev

[Derek geldard]

On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:13:35 +0100, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:


>
>Cars *are* more restricted than bicycles you idiot. Do you have to pass a
>test to use a bicycle on UK roads? Do you have to have a licence to use a
>bicycle on UK roads? Do you have to have your bicycle tested annually for
>road-worthiness? Do you have to take out insurance to use your bicycle on
>UK roads? Do you have to purchase an annual excise licence for your bicycle?
>
>Yes, cars can be dangerous, and occasionally people lose their lives in road
>accidents involving cars - but that has to be weighed against the massive
>benefits that cars has brought us.

This is the case for all heavy machinery.

The heavier and more powerful a machine is the more useful work it
can turn out., and the greater is the possibility of injuring
operators or onlookers even to the extent of causing death.

The possibility of a machine causing death or injury is mitigated by
legal restrictions over the manner which it is used.

Derek

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
> compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8684999.stm
>

This also shows how dangerous it is to go out 'God bothering' and buying
sweets, if he had not done either one of these things then he would be alive
today.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > OK then, as long as the
> > physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
> > much more restricted than bicycles.
>
> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>
As they should be.
>
> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
> than bicycles?
>
Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at all,
and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for their
own death which is utterly crazy. If it was anything else than a car
weapon it would be treated much more seriously.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> OK then, as long as the
>>> physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
>>> much more restricted than bicycles.
>> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>>
> As they should be.
>> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
>> than bicycles?
>>
> Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
> vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at all,
> and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for their
> own death which is utterly crazy.

Not if some of the blame is theirs, but you know that don't you?

> If it was anything else than a car
> weapon it would be treated much more seriously.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.


--
Tony Dragon

[Doug[_3_]]

On 18 May, 06:53, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> OK then, as long as the
> >>> physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
> >>> much more restricted than bicycles.
> >> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>
> > As they should be.
> >> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
> >> than bicycles?
>
> > Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
> > vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at all,
> > and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for their
> > own death which is utterly crazy.
>
> Not if some of the blame is theirs, but you know that don't you?
>
So you think that drivers should be allowed to kill people who make
mistakes?
>
> > If it was anything else than a car
> > weapon it would be treated much more seriously.
>
> > --
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> >http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > OK then, as long as the
>> > physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
>> > much more restricted than bicycles.
>>
>> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>>
> As they should be.
>>
>> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
>> than bicycles?
>>
> Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
> vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at all,
> and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for their
> own death which is utterly crazy. If it was anything else than a car
> weapon it would be treated much more seriously.
>
In this instance, it would appear that the youth was responsible for his own
death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279252/Jehovahs-Witness-15-dies-refusing-blood-following-crash.html

He refused a blood transfusion.

[Adrian]

"Brimstone" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> In this instance, it would appear that the youth was responsible for his
> own death.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279252/Jehovahs-Witness-15-
dies-refusing-blood-following-crash.html
>
> He refused a blood transfusion.

Hit whilst out "preaching to residents"...

Oh, the irony.

I notice that the Duhg/Hansen dreamteam are - as ever - ignoring the
subtle detail that none of the "unacceptable face of motoring" (is there
an acceptable face for them?) are doing anything but condemn the utter
****wit who caused the collision whilst undoubtedly driving like a
complete and utter ****.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > OK then, as long as the
> > > physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
> > > much more restricted than bicycles.
> >
> > er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
> >
> As they should be.
> >
> > Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
> > than bicycles?
> >
> Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
> vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at all,
> and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for their
> own death which is utterly crazy.

err .. like those stupid cyclists who ride up the inside of left
turning lorries? How is that anyone's fault but their own?

> If it was anything else than a car
> weapon it would be treated much more seriously.

None of which answers the question of "how are cars not much more
restricted than bicycles?"



--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Brimstone]

"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "Brimstone" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>> In this instance, it would appear that the youth was responsible for his
>> own death.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279252/Jehovahs-Witness-15-
> dies-refusing-blood-following-crash.html
>>
>> He refused a blood transfusion.
>
> Hit whilst out "preaching to residents"...
>
> Oh, the irony.
>
> I notice that the Duhg/Hansen dreamteam are - as ever - ignoring the
> subtle detail that none of the "unacceptable face of motoring" (is there
> an acceptable face for them?) are doing anything but condemn the utter
> ****wit who caused the collision whilst undoubtedly driving like a
> complete and utter ****.

That would be god moving a different but equally mysterious way.

[David Hansen]

On 18 May 2010 06:35:09 GMT someone who may be Adrian
> wrote this:-

>I notice that the Duhg/Hansen dreamteam

Excellent, an insult. Do keep it up.

>the "unacceptable face of motoring" (is there
>an acceptable face for them?)

I can't speak for Doug, but for me the answer to your question is
yes. That should have been obvious, so I can only assume that you
are trolling.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[Adrian]

David Hansen > gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

>>I notice that the Duhg/Hansen dreamteam

> Excellent, an insult. Do keep it up.

That wasn't an insult. Unless, of course, you regard being associated
with Duhg as an insult?

>>the "unacceptable face of motoring" (is there an acceptable face for
>>them?)

> I can't speak for Doug, but for me the answer to your question is yes.
> That should have been obvious, so I can only assume that you are
> trolling.

Not at all. It was a straight question. As with Duhg, you've consistently
and constantly displayed the rather tired and hackneyed "Two pedals good,
four wheels bad" mantra for about as long as I can recall seeing your
posts.

If your position truly is that it is not in any way, shape or form the
particular mode of transport which is inherently good or bad, that all
modes have their advantages/disadvantages/appropriateness, and that the
problems stem solely from the attitude/competence/responsibility of the
individual users, then I apologise for misrepresenting you - but you
might wish to consider why so many people seem to share my apparent
misconceptions of your views.

[GT]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of a car
> compare to that of a bicycle. Nowhere is safe from these terrorists.

You have totally ruined the point of this post by calling all car drivers
terrorists!!

Oh and your signature is wrong - you state, 'a driving licence is a licence
to kill'? This is a clear typo as murdering someone by driving over them is
not legal in this country!! No, a driving license is a license to drive -
the clue is in its name!! In order to have a license to kill, you need to
join the forces where after weapons training + relevant assignment, you will
be issued with a 'license to kill'.

[Adrian]

"GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

> In order to have a license to kill, you need to join the forces where
> after weapons training + relevant assignment, you will be issued with a
> 'license to kill'.

<gently>
James Bond isn't real, y'know.

[GT]

"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>> In order to have a license to kill, you need to join the forces where
>> after weapons training + relevant assignment, you will be issued with a
>> 'license to kill'.
>
> <gently>
> James Bond isn't real, y'know.

:-)

'License to kill' *does* actually exist tho!

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 18 May, 06:53, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> OK then, as long as the
>>>>> physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
>>>>> much more restricted than bicycles.
>>>> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>>> As they should be.
>>>> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
>>>> than bicycles?
>>> Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
>>> vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at all,
>>> and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for their
>>> own death which is utterly crazy.
>> Not if some of the blame is theirs, but you know that don't you?
>>
> So you think that drivers should be allowed to kill people who make
> mistakes?
>>> If it was anything else than a car
>>> weapon it would be treated much more seriously.
>>> --
>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
>

Feel free to post where I said that.

--
Tony Dragon

[Doug[_3_]]

On 18 May, 07:15, "Brimstone" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >> > OK then, as long as the
> >> > physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
> >> > much more restricted than bicycles.
>
> >> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>
> > As they should be.
>
> >> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
> >> than bicycles?
>
> > Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
> > vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at all,
> > and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for their
> > own death which is utterly crazy. If it was anything else than a car
> > weapon it would be treated much more seriously.
>
> In this instance, it would appear that the youth was responsible for his own
> death.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279252/Jehovahs-Witness-15-d...
>
> He refused a blood transfusion.
>
But not for the injury caused by the driver which led to his death.


--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 18 May, 09:33, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > OK then, as long as the
> > > > physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
> > > > much more restricted than bicycles.
>
> > > er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>
> > As they should be.
>
> > > Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
> > > than bicycles?
>
> > Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
> > vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at all,
> > and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for their
> > own death which is utterly crazy.
>
> err .. like those stupid cyclists who ride up the inside of left
> turning lorries? *How is that anyone's fault but their own?
>
> > *If it was anything else than a car
> > weapon it would be treated much more seriously.
>
> None of which answers the question of "how are cars not much more
> restricted than bicycles?"
>
See previous post. They may be more restricted but not punished
enough, if at all, when they kill.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> On 18 May, 09:33, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > OK then, as long as the
> > > > > physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars
> > > > > should be much more restricted than bicycles.
> >
> > > > er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
> >
> > > As they should be.
> >
> > > > Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more
> > > > restricted than bicycles?
> >
> > > Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone,
> > > particularly vulnerable road users, they are not punished
> > > sufficiently, if at all, and the vulnerable road user is often
> > > made to take the blame for their own death which is utterly crazy.
> >
> > err .. like those stupid cyclists who ride up the inside of left
> > turning lorries? *How is that anyone's fault but their own?
> >
> > > *If it was anything else than a car
> > > weapon it would be treated much more seriously.
> >
> > None of which answers the question of "how are cars not much more
> > restricted than bicycles?"
> >
> See previous post. They may be more restricted but not punished
> enough, if at all, when they kill.

So now you agree that cars are more restricted than bicycles .. so why
did you say they weren't when you actually meant something else?

Goalposts firmly moved I think.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 May, 07:15, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> >> Doug wrote:
>> >> > OK then, as long as the
>> >> > physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
>> >> > much more restricted than bicycles.
>>
>> >> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>>
>> > As they should be.
>>
>> >> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
>> >> than bicycles?
>>
>> > Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
>> > vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at all,
>> > and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for their
>> > own death which is utterly crazy. If it was anything else than a car
>> > weapon it would be treated much more seriously.
>>
>> In this instance, it would appear that the youth was responsible for his
>> own
>> death.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279252/Jehovahs-Witness-15-d...
>>
>> He refused a blood transfusion.
>>
> But not for the injury caused by the driver which led to his death.
>
The injury didn't lead to his death. His willful refusal to accept medical
aid led to his death. If he hadn't been so bone headed he'd still be alive.

[Brimstone]

"Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
...
> Doug wrote:
>
>> On 18 May, 09:33, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> > Doug wrote:
>> > > On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> > > > Doug wrote:
>> > > > > OK then, as long as the
>> > > > > physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars
>> > > > > should be much more restricted than bicycles.
>> >
>> > > > er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>> >
>> > > As they should be.
>> >
>> > > > Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more
>> > > > restricted than bicycles?
>> >
>> > > Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone,
>> > > particularly vulnerable road users, they are not punished
>> > > sufficiently, if at all, and the vulnerable road user is often
>> > > made to take the blame for their own death which is utterly crazy.
>> >
>> > err .. like those stupid cyclists who ride up the inside of left
>> > turning lorries? How is that anyone's fault but their own?
>> >
>> > > If it was anything else than a car
>> > > weapon it would be treated much more seriously.
>> >
>> > None of which answers the question of "how are cars not much more
>> > restricted than bicycles?"
>> >
>> See previous post. They may be more restricted but not punished
>> enough, if at all, when they kill.
>
> So now you agree that cars are more restricted than bicycles .. so why
> did you say they weren't when you actually meant something else?
>
> Goalposts firmly moved I think.
>
Certainly they've moved, but they won't be in their new location for very
long.

[Tony \(UncleFista\)]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of RELIGION

I fixed your post for you Duhhhg, as reported, he died because he'd not
joined the 21st century and thought his god was going to save him.
It didn't happen and refusing blood due to him being a Jehova's witless
killed him, the car only hurt him.....

[Adrian]

"Tony \(UncleFista\)" > gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:

>> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of RELIGION

> I fixed your post for you Duhhhg, as reported, he died because he'd not
> joined the 21st century and thought his god was going to save him. It
> didn't happen and refusing blood due to him being a Jehova's witless
> killed him, the car only hurt him.....

It's also worth noting that nobody has made any comment to try to absolve
the ****wit who crashed his chavmobile in the first place.

But to charge him with a fatality would be monumentally unjust, since the
kid effectively committed suicide.

[GT]

"Mike Henry" > wrote in message
...
> In >, "GT" > wrote:
>
>>"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
>>> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>>
>>>> In order to have a license to kill, you need to join the forces where
>>>> after weapons training + relevant assignment, you will be issued with a
>>>> 'license to kill'.
>>>
>>> <gently>
>>> James Bond isn't real, y'know.
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>'License to kill' *does* actually exist tho!
>
> Except that thankfully, it uses the correct English spelling of licence,
> and not the American spelling that you seem to have used (for some
> reason).
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097742/
> A great film.

Actually, both spellings are valid and in the OED. Words like 'License' and
'realize' were used widely in English when the Americans adopted/inherited
our language. English has since introduced extra (not replacement) spellings
for some words, typically because a few people spelled the words wrongly a
few times and the masses followed suit. Eventually everyone was
miss-spelling things, so the dictionary 'folk' added the new spellings, like
'licence', 'realise' into the dictionary.

Just about all bond films are great.

[GT]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 May, 06:53, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> >> Doug wrote:
>> >>> OK then, as long as the
>> >>> physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
>> >>> much more restricted than bicycles.
>> >> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>>
>> > As they should be.
>> >> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
>> >> than bicycles?
>>
>> > Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
>> > vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at all,
>> > and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for their
>> > own death which is utterly crazy.
>>
>> Not if some of the blame is theirs, but you know that don't you?
>>
> So you think that drivers should be allowed to kill people who make
> mistakes?

No doug, its your opinion that drivers should be allowed to commit murder
legally - you say so in your signature. Doug's signature, "A driving licence
is a licence to kill."!! Get your facts straight.

[Brimstone]

"GT" > wrote in message
...

> No doug, its your opinion that drivers should be allowed to commit murder
> legally - you say so in your signature. Doug's signature, "A driving
> licence is a licence to kill."!! Get your facts straight.
If Doug did that he wouldn't be Doug.

[GT]

"Brimstone" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> No doug, its your opinion that drivers should be allowed to commit murder
>> legally - you say so in your signature. Doug's signature, "A driving
>> licence is a licence to kill."!! Get your facts straight.
> If Doug did that he wouldn't be Doug.
lol

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Adrian wrote:
> "Tony \(UncleFista\)" > gurgled
> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of
>>> RELIGION
>
>> I fixed your post for you Duhhhg, as reported, he died because he'd
>> not joined the 21st century and thought his god was going to save
>> him. It didn't happen and refusing blood due to him being a Jehova's
>> witless killed him, the car only hurt him.....
>
> It's also worth noting that nobody has made any comment to try to
> absolve the ****wit who crashed his chavmobile in the first place.
>
> But to charge him with a fatality would be monumentally unjust, since
> the kid effectively committed suicide.

Not necessarily:

However, in r. v Blaue , the defendant stabbed a young girl and pierced her
lung and told she needed a blood transfusion in order to save her life.
Being a Jehovah's Witness, she refused on religious grounds and duly died
from loss of blood. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter and he
appealed on the ground that the girl's refusal was unreasonable and thereby
was a break of the chain of causation. This was not upheld and Lawton LJ
said regardless of her religious beliefs, "The question for decision is what
caused her death. The answer is the stab wound." As an alternative, the test
of 'reasonable foresight' pertains to whether an intervening act was so
unpredictable as to break the chain of causation linking the defendant to
the death.

[Adrian]

"Mrcheerful" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>>> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of RELIGION

>>> I fixed your post for you Duhhhg, as reported, he died because he'd
>>> not joined the 21st century and thought his god was going to save him.
>>> It didn't happen and refusing blood due to him being a Jehova's
>>> witless killed him, the car only hurt him.....

>> It's also worth noting that nobody has made any comment to try to
>> absolve the ****wit who crashed his chavmobile in the first place.
>>
>> But to charge him with a fatality would be monumentally unjust, since
>> the kid effectively committed suicide.

> Not necessarily:
>
> However, in r. v Blaue , the defendant stabbed a young girl and pierced
> her lung and told she needed a blood transfusion in order to save her
> life. Being a Jehovah's Witness, she refused on religious grounds and
> duly died from loss of blood. The defendant was convicted of
> manslaughter and he appealed on the ground that the girl's refusal was
> unreasonable and thereby was a break of the chain of causation. This was
> not upheld and Lawton LJ said regardless of her religious beliefs, "The
> question for decision is what caused her death. The answer is the stab
> wound." As an alternative, the test of 'reasonable foresight' pertains
> to whether an intervening act was so unpredictable as to break the chain
> of causation linking the defendant to the death.

Interesting.

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

That does seem to be quite specific about deliberate violent actions,
though - I wonder how that would compare to a situation where there was
no premeditation or deliberate violence?

[GT]

"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "Mrcheerful" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>>>>> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of RELIGION
>
>>>> I fixed your post for you Duhhhg, as reported, he died because he'd
>>>> not joined the 21st century and thought his god was going to save him.
>>>> It didn't happen and refusing blood due to him being a Jehova's
>>>> witless killed him, the car only hurt him.....
>
>>> It's also worth noting that nobody has made any comment to try to
>>> absolve the ****wit who crashed his chavmobile in the first place.
>>>
>>> But to charge him with a fatality would be monumentally unjust, since
>>> the kid effectively committed suicide.
>
>> Not necessarily:
>>
>> However, in r. v Blaue , the defendant stabbed a young girl and pierced
>> her lung and told she needed a blood transfusion in order to save her
>> life. Being a Jehovah's Witness, she refused on religious grounds and
>> duly died from loss of blood. The defendant was convicted of
>> manslaughter and he appealed on the ground that the girl's refusal was
>> unreasonable and thereby was a break of the chain of causation. This was
>> not upheld and Lawton LJ said regardless of her religious beliefs, "The
>> question for decision is what caused her death. The answer is the stab
>> wound." As an alternative, the test of 'reasonable foresight' pertains
>> to whether an intervening act was so unpredictable as to break the chain
>> of causation linking the defendant to the death.
>
> Interesting.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Blaue
>
> That does seem to be quite specific about deliberate violent actions,
> though - I wonder how that would compare to a situation where there was
> no premeditation or deliberate violence?

Precisely Adrian - accidents are so called because they are accidental !
Lunging at someone with enough force so as to pierce a lung with your knife
isn't really an accident. We are not comparing apples with apples here!

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

GT wrote:
> "Adrian" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Mrcheerful" > gurgled happily, sounding much
>> like they were saying:
>>
>>>>>> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of
>>>>>> RELIGION
>>
>>>>> I fixed your post for you Duhhhg, as reported, he died because
>>>>> he'd not joined the 21st century and thought his god was going to
>>>>> save him. It didn't happen and refusing blood due to him being a
>>>>> Jehova's witless killed him, the car only hurt him.....
>>
>>>> It's also worth noting that nobody has made any comment to try to
>>>> absolve the ****wit who crashed his chavmobile in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> But to charge him with a fatality would be monumentally unjust,
>>>> since the kid effectively committed suicide.
>>
>>> Not necessarily:
>>>
>>> However, in r. v Blaue , the defendant stabbed a young girl and
>>> pierced her lung and told she needed a blood transfusion in order
>>> to save her life. Being a Jehovah's Witness, she refused on
>>> religious grounds and duly died from loss of blood. The defendant
>>> was convicted of manslaughter and he appealed on the ground that
>>> the girl's refusal was unreasonable and thereby was a break of the
>>> chain of causation. This was not upheld and Lawton LJ said
>>> regardless of her religious beliefs, "The question for decision is
>>> what caused her death. The answer is the stab wound." As an
>>> alternative, the test of 'reasonable foresight' pertains to whether
>>> an intervening act was so unpredictable as to break the chain of
>>> causation linking the defendant to the death.
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Blaue
>>
>> That does seem to be quite specific about deliberate violent actions,
>> though - I wonder how that would compare to a situation where there
>> was no premeditation or deliberate violence?
>
> Precisely Adrian - accidents are so called because they are
> accidental ! Lunging at someone with enough force so as to pierce a
> lung with your knife isn't really an accident. We are not comparing
> apples with apples here!

no, but it is foreseeable that if you drive badly , you may kill someone,
the old eggshell skull bit would come in to play, after all that JW would
not have been in hospital but for the car smash. So unless the driver can
show that the accident was not his fault then causing death
by.....something........ driving........ would come in to effect I would
expect.

[Adrian]

"GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

>> That does seem to be quite specific about deliberate violent actions,
>> though - I wonder how that would compare to a situation where there was
>> no premeditation or deliberate violence?

> Precisely Adrian - accidents are so called because they are accidental !
> Lunging at someone with enough force so as to pierce a lung with your
> knife isn't really an accident. We are not comparing apples with apples
> here!

He's not being charged with a crime of pre-meditation, though. He is very
likely to be charged with Careless or Dangerous Driving. The question is,
does that become Death By C/DD? The only difference between the two is
whether the person died as a result. Same as between G/ABH and
Manslaughter.

Seeing that precedent makes me think it could go either way - I would
_hope_ that it would go in favour of the death being caused by the
religion not the collision, but it may well depend on how serious the
injuries otherwise were.

[GT]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
> GT wrote:
>> "Adrian" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Mrcheerful" > gurgled happily, sounding much
>>> like they were saying:
>>>
>>>>>>> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of
>>>>>>> RELIGION
>>>
>>>>>> I fixed your post for you Duhhhg, as reported, he died because
>>>>>> he'd not joined the 21st century and thought his god was going to
>>>>>> save him. It didn't happen and refusing blood due to him being a
>>>>>> Jehova's witless killed him, the car only hurt him.....
>>>
>>>>> It's also worth noting that nobody has made any comment to try to
>>>>> absolve the ****wit who crashed his chavmobile in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> But to charge him with a fatality would be monumentally unjust,
>>>>> since the kid effectively committed suicide.
>>>
>>>> Not necessarily:
>>>>
>>>> However, in r. v Blaue , the defendant stabbed a young girl and
>>>> pierced her lung and told she needed a blood transfusion in order
>>>> to save her life. Being a Jehovah's Witness, she refused on
>>>> religious grounds and duly died from loss of blood. The defendant
>>>> was convicted of manslaughter and he appealed on the ground that
>>>> the girl's refusal was unreasonable and thereby was a break of the
>>>> chain of causation. This was not upheld and Lawton LJ said
>>>> regardless of her religious beliefs, "The question for decision is
>>>> what caused her death. The answer is the stab wound." As an
>>>> alternative, the test of 'reasonable foresight' pertains to whether
>>>> an intervening act was so unpredictable as to break the chain of
>>>> causation linking the defendant to the death.
>>>
>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Blaue
>>>
>>> That does seem to be quite specific about deliberate violent actions,
>>> though - I wonder how that would compare to a situation where there
>>> was no premeditation or deliberate violence?
>>
>> Precisely Adrian - accidents are so called because they are
>> accidental ! Lunging at someone with enough force so as to pierce a
>> lung with your knife isn't really an accident. We are not comparing
>> apples with apples here!
>
> no, but it is foreseeable that if you drive badly , you may kill someone,
> the old eggshell skull bit would come in to play, after all that JW would
> not have been in hospital but for the car smash. So unless the driver can
> show that the accident was not his fault then causing death
> by.....something........ driving........ would come in to effect I would
> expect.

There is no dispute that the person would not have been injured if the car
had remained on the road, but making the leap from poor driving to
deliberate murder is rediculous. It is rediculous because it does not factor
in 'intent'. Driving badly does not, as implied, mean that you intend to
commit murder, whereas running at someone with a large knife and plunging it
into them with deadly force does rather imply intent to commit murder.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 19 May, 07:29, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 18 May, 09:33, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > > OK then, as long as the
> > > > > > physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars
> > > > > > should be much more restricted than bicycles.
>
> > > > > er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>
> > > > As they should be.
>
> > > > > Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more
> > > > > restricted than bicycles?
>
> > > > Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone,
> > > > particularly vulnerable road users, they are not punished
> > > > sufficiently, if at all, and the vulnerable road user is often
> > > > made to take the blame for their own death which is utterly crazy.
>
> > > err .. like those stupid cyclists who ride up the inside of left
> > > turning lorries? *How is that anyone's fault but their own?
>
> > > > *If it was anything else than a car
> > > > weapon it would be treated much more seriously.
>
> > > None of which answers the question of "how are cars not much more
> > > restricted than bicycles?"
>
> > See previous post. They may be more restricted but not punished
> > enough, if at all, when they kill.
>
> So now you agree that cars are more restricted than bicycles .. so why
> did you say they weren't when you actually meant something else?
>
> Goalposts firmly moved I think.
>
So you too have a reading problem.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 19 May, 09:06, "Brimstone" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 18 May, 07:15, "Brimstone" > wrote:
> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> >> >> Doug wrote:
> >> >> > OK then, as long as the
> >> >> > physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
> >> >> > much more restricted than bicycles.
>
> >> >> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>
> >> > As they should be.
>
> >> >> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
> >> >> than bicycles?
>
> >> > Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
> >> > vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at all,
> >> > and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for their
> >> > own death which is utterly crazy. If it was anything else than a car
> >> > weapon it would be treated much more seriously.
>
> >> In this instance, it would appear that the youth was responsible for his
> >> own
> >> death.
>
> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279252/Jehovahs-Witness-15-d...
>
> >> He refused a blood transfusion.
>
> > But not for the injury caused by the driver which led to his death.
>
> The injury didn't lead to his death. His willful refusal to accept medical
> aid led to his death. If he hadn't been so bone headed he'd still be alive.
>
Don't you mean 'if he hadn't been injured he would still be alive'?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 19 May, 13:54, "GT" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On 18 May, 06:53, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >> > On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> >> >> Doug wrote:
> >> >>> OK then, as long as the
> >> >>> physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
> >> >>> much more restricted than bicycles.
> >> >> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>
> >> > As they should be.
> >> >> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
> >> >> than bicycles?
>
> >> > Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
> >> > vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at all,
> >> > and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for their
> >> > own death which is utterly crazy.
>
> >> Not if some of the blame is theirs, but you know that don't you?
>
> > So you think that drivers should be allowed to kill people who make
> > mistakes?
>
> No doug, its your opinion that drivers should be allowed to commit murder
> legally - you say so in your signature. Doug's signature, "A driving licence
> is a licence to kill."!! Get your facts straight.
>
The fact is that drivers are often allowed to kill with relative
impunity, especially when their victim is made to take the blame.
Also, they are allowed to kill someone who has made a mistake on our
roads. It follows that the driving licence is in fact a licence to
kill, since they would never get away with it if it wasn't a road or
pavement where they killed.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 19 May, 09:06, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On 18 May, 07:15, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> >> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> > On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> >> >> Doug wrote:
>> >> >> > OK then, as long as the
>> >> >> > physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should
>> >> >> > be
>> >> >> > much more restricted than bicycles.
>>
>> >> >> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>>
>> >> > As they should be.
>>
>> >> >> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
>> >> >> than bicycles?
>>
>> >> > Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
>> >> > vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at
>> >> > all,
>> >> > and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for
>> >> > their
>> >> > own death which is utterly crazy. If it was anything else than a car
>> >> > weapon it would be treated much more seriously.
>>
>> >> In this instance, it would appear that the youth was responsible for
>> >> his
>> >> own
>> >> death.
>>
>> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279252/Jehovahs-Witness-15-d...
>>
>> >> He refused a blood transfusion.
>>
>> > But not for the injury caused by the driver which led to his death.
>>
>> The injury didn't lead to his death. His willful refusal to accept
>> medical
>> aid led to his death. If he hadn't been so bone headed he'd still be
>> alive.
>>
> Don't you mean 'if he hadn't been injured he would still be alive'?
>
I meant what I wrote, can't you read?

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 19 May, 07:29, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 18 May, 09:33, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> OK then, as long as the
>>>>>>> physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars
>>>>>>> should be much more restricted than bicycles.
>>>>>> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>>>>> As they should be.
>>>>>> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more
>>>>>> restricted than bicycles?
>>>>> Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone,
>>>>> particularly vulnerable road users, they are not punished
>>>>> sufficiently, if at all, and the vulnerable road user is often
>>>>> made to take the blame for their own death which is utterly crazy.
>>>> err .. like those stupid cyclists who ride up the inside of left
>>>> turning lorries? How is that anyone's fault but their own?
>>>>> If it was anything else than a car
>>>>> weapon it would be treated much more seriously.
>>>> None of which answers the question of "how are cars not much more
>>>> restricted than bicycles?"
>>> See previous post. They may be more restricted but not punished
>>> enough, if at all, when they kill.
>> So now you agree that cars are more restricted than bicycles .. so why
>> did you say they weren't when you actually meant something else?
>>
>> Goalposts firmly moved I think.
>>
> So you too have a reading problem.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>

Ah, I see now, everybody has a reading problem, except Doug.

--
Tony Dragon

[GT]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 19 May, 13:54, "GT" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 18 May, 06:53, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> >> Doug wrote:
>> >> > On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> >> >> Doug wrote:
>> >> >>> OK then, as long as the
>> >> >>> physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
>> >> >>> much more restricted than bicycles.
>> >> >> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>>
>> >> > As they should be.
>> >> >> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
>> >> >> than bicycles?
>>
>> >> > Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
>> >> > vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at
>> >> > all,
>> >> > and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for
>> >> > their
>> >> > own death which is utterly crazy.
>>
>> >> Not if some of the blame is theirs, but you know that don't you?
>>
>> > So you think that drivers should be allowed to kill people who make
>> > mistakes?
>>
>> No doug, its your opinion that drivers should be allowed to commit murder
>> legally - you say so in your signature. Doug's signature, "A driving
>> licence
>> is a licence to kill."!! Get your facts straight.
>>
> The fact is that drivers are often allowed to kill with relative
> impunity, especially when their victim is made to take the blame.
> Also, they are allowed to kill someone who has made a mistake on our
> roads. It follows that the driving licence is in fact a licence to
> kill, since they would never get away with it if it wasn't a road or
> pavement where they killed.

Ahh, I see - someone died in a car accident - the driver of the car had a
driving license, therefore the driving license is a license to kill. Its
simple just in the same way as 2 + 2 + 2 = 23.

Lets make one of Doug's wild jumps of logic - he has mentioned the word
'kids' in his post, therefore he must be a child molestor and we all know he
likes to cycle, therefore everyone who cycles a bike is a child molestor.
Damn, Doug, what have you done???

The problems with your logic are numberous, but lets pick on a few points.
You assume he intended to murder people because he had a driving license.
Well, the driver of the car also had a passport, so passports are a license
to kill now too. He had a credit card, the they'll have to all go. He had a
hat on, so hats are obviously deadly weapons - thats a shame. Oh, and he had
a TV license and a marriage license. So getting married is a license to kill
etc etc. Doug, you are making a wild and sweeping statement based falsely on
the presumption that the driver *chose* to crash deliberately, knowing that
he would kill someone. I would recommend you take 2 minutes to look up the
word 'accident' in the dictionary and then look up the word 'intent'. Study
them carefully now - they are long words.

[Brimstone]

"GT" > wrote in message
...
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 19 May, 13:54, "GT" > wrote:
>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 18 May, 06:53, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>> >> Doug wrote:
>>> >> > On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>> >> >> Doug wrote:
>>> >> >>> OK then, as long as the
>>> >> >>> physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should
>>> >> >>> be
>>> >> >>> much more restricted than bicycles.
>>> >> >> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>>>
>>> >> > As they should be.
>>> >> >> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more
>>> >> >> restricted
>>> >> >> than bicycles?
>>>
>>> >> > Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone,
>>> >> > particularly
>>> >> > vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at
>>> >> > all,
>>> >> > and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for
>>> >> > their
>>> >> > own death which is utterly crazy.
>>>
>>> >> Not if some of the blame is theirs, but you know that don't you?
>>>
>>> > So you think that drivers should be allowed to kill people who make
>>> > mistakes?
>>>
>>> No doug, its your opinion that drivers should be allowed to commit
>>> murder
>>> legally - you say so in your signature. Doug's signature, "A driving
>>> licence
>>> is a licence to kill."!! Get your facts straight.
>>>
>> The fact is that drivers are often allowed to kill with relative
>> impunity, especially when their victim is made to take the blame.
>> Also, they are allowed to kill someone who has made a mistake on our
>> roads. It follows that the driving licence is in fact a licence to
>> kill, since they would never get away with it if it wasn't a road or
>> pavement where they killed.
>
> Ahh, I see - someone died in a car accident - the driver of the car had a
> driving license, therefore the driving license is a license to kill. Its
> simple just in the same way as 2 + 2 + 2 = 23.
>
> Lets make one of Doug's wild jumps of logic - he has mentioned the word
> 'kids' in his post, therefore he must be a child molestor and we all know
> he likes to cycle, therefore everyone who cycles a bike is a child
> molestor. Damn, Doug, what have you done???
>
> The problems with your logic are numberous, but lets pick on a few points.
> You assume he intended to murder people because he had a driving license.
> Well, the driver of the car also had a passport, so passports are a
> license to kill now too. He had a credit card, the they'll have to all go.
> He had a hat on, so hats are obviously deadly weapons - thats a shame. Oh,
> and he had a TV license and a marriage license. So getting married is a
> license to kill etc etc. Doug, you are making a wild and sweeping
> statement based falsely on the presumption that the driver *chose* to
> crash deliberately, knowing that he would kill someone. I would recommend
> you take 2 minutes to look up the word 'accident' in the dictionary and
> then look up the word 'intent'. Study them carefully now - they are long
> words.
Words mean exactly what Doug wants them to mean, nothing more, nothing less.

It is safe to say that the meanings that Doug attaches to words are not the
same as everyone else's.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> So you too have a reading problem.

So you posted this .. "it should be obvious why cars should be much
more restricted than bicycles"

Then this ... "They may be more restricted but not punished enough"

and when I reply "So now you agree that cars are more restricted than
bicycles .. so why did you say they weren't when you actually meant
something else?" It's somehow me that can't read?

Please point out where I can't read.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Brimstone]

"Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
...
> Doug wrote:
>
>> So you too have a reading problem.
>
> So you posted this .. "it should be obvious why cars should be much
> more restricted than bicycles"
>
> Then this ... "They may be more restricted but not punished enough"
>
> and when I reply "So now you agree that cars are more restricted than
> bicycles .. so why did you say they weren't when you actually meant
> something else?" It's somehow me that can't read?
>
> Please point out where I can't read.
>
You can't read because you failed to read what Doug intended you to read. If
you can't grasp that simple concept then you need more education in the ways
of the Doug.

[GT]

"Brimstone" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 19 May, 13:54, "GT" > wrote:
>>>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On 18 May, 06:53, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>> >> Doug wrote:
>>>> >> > On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>>> >> >> Doug wrote:
>>>> >> >>> OK then, as long as the
>>>> >> >>> physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should
>>>> >> >>> be
>>>> >> >>> much more restricted than bicycles.
>>>> >> >> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>>>>
>>>> >> > As they should be.
>>>> >> >> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more
>>>> >> >> restricted
>>>> >> >> than bicycles?
>>>>
>>>> >> > Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone,
>>>> >> > particularly
>>>> >> > vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at
>>>> >> > all,
>>>> >> > and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for
>>>> >> > their
>>>> >> > own death which is utterly crazy.
>>>>
>>>> >> Not if some of the blame is theirs, but you know that don't you?
>>>>
>>>> > So you think that drivers should be allowed to kill people who make
>>>> > mistakes?
>>>>
>>>> No doug, its your opinion that drivers should be allowed to commit
>>>> murder
>>>> legally - you say so in your signature. Doug's signature, "A driving
>>>> licence
>>>> is a licence to kill."!! Get your facts straight.
>>>>
>>> The fact is that drivers are often allowed to kill with relative
>>> impunity, especially when their victim is made to take the blame.
>>> Also, they are allowed to kill someone who has made a mistake on our
>>> roads. It follows that the driving licence is in fact a licence to
>>> kill, since they would never get away with it if it wasn't a road or
>>> pavement where they killed.
>>
>> Ahh, I see - someone died in a car accident - the driver of the car had a
>> driving license, therefore the driving license is a license to kill. Its
>> simple just in the same way as 2 + 2 + 2 = 23.
>>
>> Lets make one of Doug's wild jumps of logic - he has mentioned the word
>> 'kids' in his post, therefore he must be a child molestor and we all know
>> he likes to cycle, therefore everyone who cycles a bike is a child
>> molestor. Damn, Doug, what have you done???
>>
>> The problems with your logic are numberous, but lets pick on a few
>> points. You assume he intended to murder people because he had a driving
>> license. Well, the driver of the car also had a passport, so passports
>> are a license to kill now too. He had a credit card, the they'll have to
>> all go. He had a hat on, so hats are obviously deadly weapons - thats a
>> shame. Oh, and he had a TV license and a marriage license. So getting
>> married is a license to kill etc etc. Doug, you are making a wild and
>> sweeping statement based falsely on the presumption that the driver
>> *chose* to crash deliberately, knowing that he would kill someone. I
>> would recommend you take 2 minutes to look up the word 'accident' in the
>> dictionary and then look up the word 'intent'. Study them carefully now -
>> they are long words.
>
> Words mean exactly what Doug wants them to mean, nothing more, nothing
> less.
>
> It is safe to say that the meanings that Doug attaches to words are not
> the same as everyone else's.

Fair point - well made!

[GT]

"Mike Henry" > wrote in message
...
> In >, "GT" > wrote:
>
>>"Mike Henry" > wrote in message
...
>>> In >, "GT" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> "GT" > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In order to have a license to kill, you need to join the forces where
>>>>>> after weapons training + relevant assignment, you will be issued with
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> 'license to kill'.
>>>>>
>>>>> <gently>
>>>>> James Bond isn't real, y'know.
>>>>
>>>>:-)
>>>>
>>>>'License to kill' *does* actually exist tho!
>>>
>>> Except that thankfully, it uses the correct English spelling of licence,
>>> and not the American spelling that you seem to have used (for some
>>> reason).
>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097742/
>>> A great film.
>>
>>Actually, both spellings are valid and in the OED. Words like 'License'
>>and
>>'realize' were used widely in English when the Americans adopted/inherited
>>our language. English has since introduced extra (not replacement)
>>spellings
>>for some words, typically because a few people spelled the words wrongly a
>>few times and the masses followed suit. Eventually everyone was
>>miss-spelling things, so the dictionary 'folk' added the new spellings,
>>like
>>'licence', 'realise' into the dictionary.
>
> No, in the case of licence in English the "s" spelling is for the verb
> only. It's like "advice" and "advise".

No, what you quote is convention, not rule. They are both equally valid. For
the verb, the dictionary defaults to the 's' version, but states the the 'c'
version as equally valid. For the noun it is the opposite. So 'license' is
typically used as the verb and 'licence' is typically used as the noun, but
they are interchangeable. Check the OED. I have the software installed here,
but copy/paste is restricted, so I can't quote directly.

How about we just agree to disagree and go back to annoying Doug.

>>Just about all bond films are great.
>
> Agree with that part.

The big question is: Roger, Sean, Pierce, or the new guy (I'll not mention
Tim)??

[GT]

"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
...
> "GT" > considered Wed, 19 May 2010 17:17:37 +0100 the perfect
> time to write:
>
>>"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
>>> GT wrote:
>>>> "Adrian" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > gurgled happily, sounding much
>>>>> like they were saying:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of
>>>>>>>>> RELIGION
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I fixed your post for you Duhhhg, as reported, he died because
>>>>>>>> he'd not joined the 21st century and thought his god was going to
>>>>>>>> save him. It didn't happen and refusing blood due to him being a
>>>>>>>> Jehova's witless killed him, the car only hurt him.....
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's also worth noting that nobody has made any comment to try to
>>>>>>> absolve the ****wit who crashed his chavmobile in the first place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But to charge him with a fatality would be monumentally unjust,
>>>>>>> since the kid effectively committed suicide.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not necessarily:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, in r. v Blaue , the defendant stabbed a young girl and
>>>>>> pierced her lung and told she needed a blood transfusion in order
>>>>>> to save her life. Being a Jehovah's Witness, she refused on
>>>>>> religious grounds and duly died from loss of blood. The defendant
>>>>>> was convicted of manslaughter and he appealed on the ground that
>>>>>> the girl's refusal was unreasonable and thereby was a break of the
>>>>>> chain of causation. This was not upheld and Lawton LJ said
>>>>>> regardless of her religious beliefs, "The question for decision is
>>>>>> what caused her death. The answer is the stab wound." As an
>>>>>> alternative, the test of 'reasonable foresight' pertains to whether
>>>>>> an intervening act was so unpredictable as to break the chain of
>>>>>> causation linking the defendant to the death.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Blaue
>>>>>
>>>>> That does seem to be quite specific about deliberate violent actions,
>>>>> though - I wonder how that would compare to a situation where there
>>>>> was no premeditation or deliberate violence?
>>>>
>>>> Precisely Adrian - accidents are so called because they are
>>>> accidental ! Lunging at someone with enough force so as to pierce a
>>>> lung with your knife isn't really an accident. We are not comparing
>>>> apples with apples here!
>>>
>>> no, but it is foreseeable that if you drive badly , you may kill
>>> someone,
>>> the old eggshell skull bit would come in to play, after all that JW
>>> would
>>> not have been in hospital but for the car smash. So unless the driver
>>> can
>>> show that the accident was not his fault then causing death
>>> by.....something........ driving........ would come in to effect I would
>>> expect.
>>
>>There is no dispute that the person would not have been injured if the car
>>had remained on the road, but making the leap from poor driving to
>>deliberate murder is rediculous. It is rediculous because it does not
>>factor
>>in 'intent'. Driving badly does not, as implied, mean that you intend to
>>commit murder, whereas running at someone with a large knife and plunging
>>it
>>into them with deadly force does rather imply intent to commit murder.
>>
> That is not the issue.

No, it *IS* the issue - Doug said that the driver *murdered* him. We say
that murder is an intentional thing and an accident cannot be intentional
murder. Doug cannot see the difference. Society can. He is wrong.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 19 May, 13:54, "GT" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 18 May, 06:53, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> OK then, as long as the
>>>>>>> physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should
>>>>>>> be much more restricted than bicycles.
>>>>>> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles. As
>>>>>> they should be. Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not
>>>>>> much more restricted than bicycles?
>>
>>>>> Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone,
>>>>> particularly vulnerable road users, they are not punished
>>>>> sufficiently, if at all, and the vulnerable road user is often
>>>>> made to take the blame for their own death which is utterly crazy.
>>
>>>> Not if some of the blame is theirs, but you know that don't you?
>>
>>> So you think that drivers should be allowed to kill people who make
>>> mistakes?
>>
>> No doug, its your opinion that drivers should be allowed to commit
>> murder legally - you say so in your signature. Doug's signature, "A
>> driving licence is a licence to kill."!! Get your facts straight.
>>
> The fact is that drivers are often allowed to kill with relative
> impunity, especially when their victim is made to take the blame.
> Also, they are allowed to kill someone who has made a mistake on our
> roads. It follows that the driving licence is in fact a licence to
> kill, since they would never get away with it if it wasn't a road or
> pavement where they killed.

Ze Plane! Ze Plane!


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

David Hansen wrote:
> On 18 May 2010 06:35:09 GMT someone who may be Adrian
> > wrote this:-
>
>> I notice that the Duhg/Hansen dreamteam
>
> Excellent, an insult. Do keep it up.

You always use that ploy when you can't answer. Ha ha ha ha ha! How many
times have I seen you use that ploy?

>> the "unacceptable face of motoring" (is there
>> an acceptable face for them?)
>
> I can't speak for Doug, but for me the answer to your question is
> yes. That should have been obvious, so I can only assume that you
> are trolling.

Last defence for a cycling **** with no answer - call your opponent a troll.

You and your bum chums are just so predictable,



--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 19 May, 13:54, "GT" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 18 May, 06:53, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 17 May, 12:11, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> OK then, as long as the
>>>>>>> physics is widely accepted it should be obvious why cars should be
>>>>>>> much more restricted than bicycles.
>>>>>> er, cars are already much more restricted than bicycles.
>>>>> As they should be.
>>>>>> Or, if you believe otherwise, how are cars not much more restricted
>>>>>> than bicycles?
>>>>> Problem is, when they kill or seriously injure someone, particularly
>>>>> vulnerable road users, they are not punished sufficiently, if at all,
>>>>> and the vulnerable road user is often made to take the blame for their
>>>>> own death which is utterly crazy.
>>>> Not if some of the blame is theirs, but you know that don't you?
>>> So you think that drivers should be allowed to kill people who make
>>> mistakes?
>> No doug, its your opinion that drivers should be allowed to commit murder
>> legally - you say so in your signature. Doug's signature, "A driving licence
>> is a licence to kill."!! Get your facts straight.
>>
> The fact is that drivers are often

Only often, why the restrictions?

> allowed to kill with relative
> impunity,

Why can't you use any relative?

> especially when their victim is made to take the blame.

No.no.no, not the victim can't be to blame rule.

> Also, they are allowed to kill someone who has made a mistake on our
> roads.

Could you cite a link to that law?

> It follows that the driving licence is in fact a licence to
> kill,

I've just checked my license & I can't see that class of vehicle on it.

> since they would never get away with it if it wasn't a road or
> pavement where they killed.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

You mean I can kill someone on the pavement & get away with it?

--
Tony Dragon

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:27:17 +0100, Tony Dragon
> wrote:

>You mean I can kill someone on the pavement & get away with it?

In many cases, yes.

[Tony Dragon]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:27:17 +0100, Tony Dragon
> > wrote:
>
>> You mean I can kill someone on the pavement & get away with it?
>
> In many cases, yes.

You mean I can't do it all the time?

--
Tony Dragon

[Doug[_3_]]

On 24 May, 06:51, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:27:17 +0100, Tony Dragon
> > > wrote:
>
> >> You mean I can kill someone on the pavement & get away with it?
>
> > In many cases, yes.
>
> You mean I can't do it all the time?
>
No your licence to kill has conditions and is restricted only to
certain circumstances, particularly if the victim is allotted full
blame for their own death. Another is if there are no witnesses. The
killing has to be on a road or pavement though. Anywhere else doesn't
apply and it has to be done with a vehicle weapon. It is no use
expecting your licence to kill to cover any other type of weapon or
location.

One possibility currently under consideration is if you are using,
say, a Toyota which has faults which causes it to lose control, in
which case you might still be fully licenced to kill even though the
victim has no blame.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 06:51:01 +0100, Tony Dragon
> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:27:17 +0100, Tony Dragon
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> You mean I can kill someone on the pavement & get away with it?
>>
>> In many cases, yes.
>
>You mean I can't do it all the time?

No.

The evil Dr Harold Shipman might have got away with killing one or two
of his patients. But when the slaughter reached triple digits people
started to be suspicious.

Likewise, you might get away with killing one or two pedestrians, but
if the numbers got into triple digits even the least suspicious of
police investigators might consider homocide as a cause.

[GT]

"Tom Crispin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 06:51:01 +0100, Tony Dragon
> > wrote:
>
>>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:27:17 +0100, Tony Dragon
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> You mean I can kill someone on the pavement & get away with it?
>>>
>>> In many cases, yes.
>>
>>You mean I can't do it all the time?
>
> No.
>
> The evil Dr Harold Shipman might have got away with killing one or two
> of his patients. But when the slaughter reached triple digits people
> started to be suspicious.
>
> Likewise, you might get away with killing one or two pedestrians, but
> if the numbers got into triple digits even the least suspicious of
> police investigators might consider homocide as a cause.

You have a very strange grasp of british law and are talking out of a hole
in your rear.