Another charming driver. [Archive]

Sedentary IgnorantPopulist

November 13th 10, 11:36 AM

On 13 nov, 12:02, JMS > wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:33:56 -0000, "Simon Mason"
>
> > wrote:
> >A barrister films a motorist.
>
> >http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
>
> I assumed you posted that in order to show what ******* these cyclists
> with cameras on their heads and up their arses are.
>
> I agree
>
> Well done.
>
> -- * * *
> Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... *and *so
> cannot be of any consequence.
> (Simon Mason - *who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)

Got to agree with JMS on this one. That ****ing cockey cyclist was
****ing asking for it by being on the road - he don't pay road tax
anyway.
He probbly set the whole thing up.

November 13th 10, 12:25 PM

On Nov 13, 10:33*am, "Simon Mason" >
wrote:
> A barrister films a motorist.
>
> http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
>
> --
> Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
happened before the start of the tape.
I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.

Tom Crispin[_4_]

November 13th 10, 12:26 PM

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:55:13 -0000, "Simon Mason"
> wrote:

>
>"Mr. Benn" > wrote in message
...
>> "Simon Mason" wrote in message
>> . uk...
>>
>> A barrister films a motorist.
>>
>> http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-threat-video%E2%80%A6-insufficient-evidence-say-met-cps
>> ==================
>>
>> The driver was a pillock but the cyclist's video reminds me of those taken
>> by Ian Jackson in which he deliberately provokes drivers into doing stupid
>> things.
>
>Or maybe he just films drivers doing stupid things.

No, Jackson's films have clearly demonstrated a deliberately
provocative attitude towards other road users. That in no way excuses
the actions of some of the drivers towards Jackson, but his cycling
style is certainly provocative.

Sedentary IgnorantPopulist

November 13th 10, 12:38 PM

On 13 nov, 13:25, NM > wrote:
> On Nov 13, 10:33*am, "Simon Mason" >
> wrote:
>
> > A barrister films a motorist.
>
> >http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
>
> > --
> > Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/
>
> Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
> happened before the start of the tape.
> I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.

Exactley. The road lice are an extreme danger to motorists and the
driver should of killed him

Tom Crispin[_4_]

November 13th 10, 12:38 PM

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 03:36:11 -0800 (PST), Sedentary IgnorantPopulist
> wrote:

>On 13 nov, 12:02, JMS > wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:33:56 -0000, "Simon Mason"
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >A barrister films a motorist.
>>
>> >http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
>>
>> I assumed you posted that in order to show what ******* these cyclists
>> with cameras on their heads and up their arses are.
>>
>> I agree
>>
>> Well done.
>>
>> -- * * *
>> Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... *and *so
>> cannot be of any consequence.
>> (Simon Mason - *who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)
>
>Got to agree with JMS on this one. That ****ing cockey cyclist was
>****ing asking for it by being on the road - he don't pay road tax
>anyway.

How do you know that he doesn't have a properly taxed motor vehicle?

>He probbly set the whole thing up.

I doubt it, but I do not expect that the death threat was serious.

Simon Mason

November 13th 10, 12:44 PM

"Tom Crispin" > wrote in message
...
>
> I doubt it, but I do not expect that the death threat was serious.

These threats *are* taken seriously, even when obviously a "joke".

http://topnews.co.uk/216628-twitter-users-stand-airport-bomb-joker-who-lost-appeal

The barrister has vowed to continue his fight. One hopes he will succeed in
the long run.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Simon Mason

November 13th 10, 12:52 PM

"Tom Crispin" > wrote in message
...
>
> How do you know that he doesn't have a properly taxed motor vehicle?

Not only that, he has been a top barrister for decades and has paid more in
tax than the little scrote in his poxy car who bravely threatened him from
the safety of his chavmobile will pay in his lifetime. That's assuming he
has insurance and paid VED at all.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Sedentary IgnorantPopulist

November 13th 10, 12:57 PM

On 13 nov, 13:52, "Simon Mason" > wrote:
> "Tom Crispin" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > How do you know that he doesn't have a properly taxed motor vehicle?
>
> Not only that, he has been a top barrister for decades and has paid more in
> tax than the little scrote in his poxy car who bravely threatened him from
> the safety of his chavmobile will pay in his lifetime. That's assuming he
> has insurance and paid VED at all.
>
> --
> Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

It's like what Dave said isnt it? The cyclist dont pay no tax for his
****ing toymobil and should **** off out the way - tax free scums.

Tom Crispin[_4_]

November 13th 10, 01:09 PM

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 04:57:30 -0800 (PST), Sedentary IgnorantPopulist
> wrote:

>On 13 nov, 13:52, "Simon Mason" > wrote:
>> "Tom Crispin" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > How do you know that he doesn't have a properly taxed motor vehicle?
>>
>> Not only that, he has been a top barrister for decades and has paid more in
>> tax than the little scrote in his poxy car who bravely threatened him from
>> the safety of his chavmobile will pay in his lifetime. That's assuming he
>> has insurance and paid VED at all.
>>
>> --
>> Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/
>
>It's like what Dave said isnt it? The cyclist dont pay no tax for his
>****ing toymobil and should **** off out the way - tax free scums.

I was sort of assuming that you were David Lang.

Simon Mason

November 13th 10, 01:18 PM

"Tom Crispin" > wrote in message >
> I was sort of assuming that you were David Lang.

No.
Medway Man, to be fair to him, doesn't make quite so many spelling and
grammatical errors.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

JNugent[_7_]

November 13th 10, 01:53 PM

On 13/11/2010 12:44, Simon Mason wrote:

> "Tom Crispin" > wrote:

>> I doubt it, but I do not expect that the death threat was serious.

> These threats *are* taken seriously, even when obviously a "joke".
> http://topnews.co.uk/216628-twitter-users-stand-airport-bomb-joker-who-lost-appeal

As you obviously didn't know, that cited case arises out of the fact that
there is a specific law against making "jokes" about bombs at airports or in
airport luggage.

Want to try again with a less irrelevant analogy?

> The barrister has vowed to continue his fight. One hopes he will succeed in
> the long run.

What is he fighting for, exactly?

Apart from the hell of it, I mean.

[The video link didn't work.]

Simon Mason

November 13th 10, 02:05 PM

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 13/11/2010 12:44, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>> "Tom Crispin" > wrote:
>
>>> I doubt it, but I do not expect that the death threat was serious.
>
>> These threats *are* taken seriously, even when obviously a "joke".
>> http://topnews.co.uk/216628-twitter-users-stand-airport-bomb-joker-who-lost-appeal
>
> As you obviously didn't know, that cited case arises out of the fact that
> there is a specific law against making "jokes" about bombs at airports or
> in airport luggage.
>
> Want to try again with a less irrelevant analogy?

No. The first one was fine, thank you.

>> The barrister has vowed to continue his fight. One hopes he will succeed
in
>> the long run.
>
> What is he fighting for, exactly?
>
> Apart from the hell of it, I mean.
>
> [The video link didn't work.]

The site is undergoing maintenance - it will be back later.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

JNugent[_7_]

November 13th 10, 02:22 PM

On 13/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote:
>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>> "Tom Crispin" > wrote:

>>>> I doubt it, but I do not expect that the death threat was serious.

>>> These threats *are* taken seriously, even when obviously a "joke".
>>> http://topnews.co.uk/216628-twitter-users-stand-airport-bomb-joker-who-lost-appeal

>> As you obviously didn't know, that cited case arises out of the fact that
>> there is a specific law against making "jokes" about bombs at airports or
>> in airport luggage.
>> Want to try again with a less irrelevant analogy?

> No. The first one was fine, thank you.

What, even though it wasn't an analogy?

>>> The barrister has vowed to continue his fight. One hopes he will succeed in
>>> the long run.

>> What is he fighting for, exactly?
>> Apart from the hell of it, I mean.
>> [The video link didn't work.]

> The site is undergoing maintenance - it will be back later.

Mr. Benn[_7_]

November 13th 10, 02:23 PM

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:55:13 -0000, "Simon Mason"
> wrote:

>
>"Mr. Benn" > wrote in message
...
>> "Simon Mason" wrote in message
>> . uk...
>>
>> A barrister films a motorist.
>>
>> http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-threat-video%E2%80%A6-insufficient-evidence-say-met-cps
>> ==================
>>
>> The driver was a pillock but the cyclist's video reminds me of those
>> taken
>> by Ian Jackson in which he deliberately provokes drivers into doing
>> stupid
>> things.
>
>Or maybe he just films drivers doing stupid things.

No, Jackson's films have clearly demonstrated a deliberately
provocative attitude towards other road users. That in no way excuses
the actions of some of the drivers towards Jackson, but his cycling
style is certainly provocative.
==============

I get the impression that Jackson goes out cycling with the intention of
creating an incident so that he can record it on the two cameras fitted to
his bike. And then whine to the police about it.

Simon Mason

November 13th 10, 02:36 PM

"NM" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 13, 10:33 am, "Simon Mason" >
wrote:
> A barrister films a motorist.
>
> http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...

>Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
>happened before the start of the tape.
>I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.

The matter is *not* closed.

The Victim says:
"We live in a car culture where the misdeeds of motorists are met with a
benign indulgence. Imagine if the threat had been made on the street when
the suspect had some other means at his disposal to carry out his threat. I
am disappointed that, as so often, aggression and bad driving around
cyclists is not being taken as seriously as it should."
Ends.

"Clearly, the issue is far from resolved and we'll bring you further
updates as and when we have them."
Three cases of people being jailed for making death threats.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jailed-Facebook-death-threats.html

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2082103_chef_jailed_for_pub_death_threat

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/4389443.Death_threat_man_gets_jail_sentence/?ref=mr

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Simon Mason

November 13th 10, 02:38 PM

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 13/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>> "Tom Crispin" > wrote:
>
>>>>> I doubt it, but I do not expect that the death threat was serious.
>
>>>> These threats *are* taken seriously, even when obviously a "joke".
>>>> http://topnews.co.uk/216628-twitter-users-stand-airport-bomb-joker-who-lost-appeal
>
>>> As you obviously didn't know, that cited case arises out of the fact
>>> that
>>> there is a specific law against making "jokes" about bombs at airports
>>> or
>>> in airport luggage.
>>> Want to try again with a less irrelevant analogy?
>
>> No. The first one was fine, thank you.
>
> What, even though it wasn't an analogy?

If you didn't like that one, here are 3 more.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jailed-Facebook-death-threats.html

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2082103_chef_jailed_for_pub_death_threat

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/4389443.Death_threat_man_gets_jail_sentence/?ref=mr

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

JNugent[_7_]

November 13th 10, 03:10 PM

On 13/11/2010 14:36, Simon Mason wrote:

> "NM" > wrote:
> "Simon Mason" > wrote:

>> A barrister films a motorist.
>> http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...

>> Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
>> happened before the start of the tape.
>> I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.

> The matter is *not* closed.

I couldn't hear what the driver said whilst driving, though I heard the
cyclist say something like: "If you do that again, I'll ****ing kill you".

The cyclist had initiated the exchange, presumably because he didn't like
being overtaken, though he might have had other reasons.

Later on, when the cyclist had caught up to the stationary car, he shouted
something unintelligible over to the driver and the driver responded with a
"Yeah, yeah", by which I understood him to mean something like "Whatever" or
even perhaps "Whatever innit".

Is anyone sensible under the impression that the video was "evidence" of any
offence?

JNugent[_7_]

November 13th 10, 03:14 PM

On 13/11/2010 14:38, Simon Mason wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote:
>> On 13/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:
>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>> "Tom Crispin" > wrote:

>>>>>> I doubt it, but I do not expect that the death threat was serious.

>>>>> These threats *are* taken seriously, even when obviously a "joke".
>>>>> http://topnews.co.uk/216628-twitter-users-stand-airport-bomb-joker-who-lost-appeal

>>>> As you obviously didn't know, that cited case arises out of the fact that
>>>> there is a specific law against making "jokes" about bombs at airports or
>>>> in airport luggage.
>>>> Want to try again with a less irrelevant analogy?

>>> No. The first one was fine, thank you.

>> What, even though it wasn't an analogy?

> If you didn't like that one, here are 3 more.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jailed-Facebook-death-threats.html
> http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2082103_chef_jailed_for_pub_death_threat
> http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/4389443.Death_threat_man_gets_jail_sentence/?ref=mr

What "threat" did that driver allegedly make, and what is your evidence for
saying it?

Simon Mason

November 13th 10, 03:18 PM

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 13/11/2010 14:36, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> Is anyone sensible under the impression that the video was "evidence" of
> any offence?

I don't know.
How about a barrister with 25 years experience?

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Tom Crispin[_4_]

November 13th 10, 03:23 PM

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:10:36 +0000, JNugent >
wrote:

>On 13/11/2010 14:36, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>> "NM" > wrote:
>> "Simon Mason" > wrote:
>
>>> A barrister films a motorist.
>>> http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
>
>>> Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
>>> happened before the start of the tape.
>>> I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.
>
>> The matter is *not* closed.
>
>I couldn't hear what the driver said whilst driving, though I heard the
>cyclist say something like: "If you do that again, I'll ****ing kill you".
>
>The cyclist had initiated the exchange, presumably because he didn't like
>being overtaken, though he might have had other reasons.
>
>Later on, when the cyclist had caught up to the stationary car, he shouted
>something unintelligible over to the driver and the driver responded with a
>"Yeah, yeah", by which I understood him to mean something like "Whatever" or
>even perhaps "Whatever innit".
>
>Is anyone sensible under the impression that the video was "evidence" of any
>offence?

I don't know, but I think the decision not to persue the matter by the
CPS is correct.

My brother once threatened to kill me. I don't think he should be
prosecuted for such a deed.

Simon Mason

November 13th 10, 03:24 PM

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 13/11/2010 14:38, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>>> "Tom Crispin" > wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I doubt it, but I do not expect that the death threat was serious.
>
>>>>>> These threats *are* taken seriously, even when obviously a "joke".
>>>>>> http://topnews.co.uk/216628-twitter-users-stand-airport-bomb-joker-who-lost-appeal
>
>>>>> As you obviously didn't know, that cited case arises out of the fact
>>>>> that
>>>>> there is a specific law against making "jokes" about bombs at airports
>>>>> or
>>>>> in airport luggage.
>>>>> Want to try again with a less irrelevant analogy?
>
>>>> No. The first one was fine, thank you.
>
>>> What, even though it wasn't an analogy?
>
>> If you didn't like that one, here are 3 more.
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jailed-Facebook-death-threats.html
>> http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2082103_chef_jailed_for_pub_death_threat
>> http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/4389443.Death_threat_man_gets_jail_sentence/?ref=mr
>
> What "threat" did that driver allegedly make, and what is your evidence
> for saying it?

The barrister says in his blog:

"A threat to kill is unlawful and I believe needs to be taken seriously when
communicated from someone in a motor car to a cyclist. I contacted the
Metropolitan Police about this and the answer is that they will only look
into it if I go into a Met station and fill in that form."

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

JNugent[_7_]

November 13th 10, 03:25 PM

On 13/11/2010 15:18, Simon Mason wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote:
>> On 13/11/2010 14:36, Simon Mason wrote:

>> Is anyone sensible under the impression that the video was "evidence" of
>> any offence?

> I don't know.

That isn't really correct, is it?

Your answer should have been "no".

> How about a barrister with 25 years experience?

Can you see any problems with that approach? The person concerned has
apparently already encountered the main problem with it.

Simon Mason

November 13th 10, 03:31 PM

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 13/11/2010 14:38, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>>> "Tom Crispin" > wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I doubt it, but I do not expect that the death threat was serious.
>
>>>>>> These threats *are* taken seriously, even when obviously a "joke".
>>>>>> http://topnews.co.uk/216628-twitter-users-stand-airport-bomb-joker-who-lost-appeal
>
>>>>> As you obviously didn't know, that cited case arises out of the fact
>>>>> that
>>>>> there is a specific law against making "jokes" about bombs at airports
>>>>> or
>>>>> in airport luggage.
>>>>> Want to try again with a less irrelevant analogy?
>
>>>> No. The first one was fine, thank you.
>
>>> What, even though it wasn't an analogy?
>
>> If you didn't like that one, here are 3 more.
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jailed-Facebook-death-threats.html
>> http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2082103_chef_jailed_for_pub_death_threat
>> http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/4389443.Death_threat_man_gets_jail_sentence/?ref=mr
>
> What "threat" did that driver allegedly make, and what is your evidence
> for saying it?

The driver says:

"You're a cocky little c**t mate"

"Did you just try to kill me?"

"Yeah, I did yeah"

"You did?"

"Yeah"

"Are you sure?"

"Yeah"

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

JNugent[_7_]

November 13th 10, 03:35 PM

On 13/11/2010 15:24, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> "JNugent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 13/11/2010 14:38, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>> On 13/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>>>> "Tom Crispin" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> I doubt it, but I do not expect that the death threat was serious.
>>
>>>>>>> These threats *are* taken seriously, even when obviously a "joke".
>>>>>>> http://topnews.co.uk/216628-twitter-users-stand-airport-bomb-joker-who-lost-appeal
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> As you obviously didn't know, that cited case arises out of the fact that
>>>>>> there is a specific law against making "jokes" about bombs at airports or
>>>>>> in airport luggage.
>>>>>> Want to try again with a less irrelevant analogy?
>>
>>>>> No. The first one was fine, thank you.
>>
>>>> What, even though it wasn't an analogy?
>>
>>> If you didn't like that one, here are 3 more.
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jailed-Facebook-death-threats.html
>>>
>>> http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2082103_chef_jailed_for_pub_death_threat
>>> http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/4389443.Death_threat_man_gets_jail_sentence/?ref=mr
>>>
>>
>> What "threat" did that driver allegedly make, and what is your evidence for
>> saying it?
>
> The barrister says in his blog:
>
> "A threat to kill is unlawful and I believe needs to be taken seriously when
> communicated from someone in a motor car to a cyclist. I contacted the
> Metropolitan Police about this and the answer is that they will only look
> into it if I go into a Met station and fill in that form."

I don't think you understood the question. Here it is again.

What "threat" did that *driver* allegedly make, and what is your evidence for
saying it?
>
>

JNugent[_7_]

November 13th 10, 03:36 PM

On 13/11/2010 15:31, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> "JNugent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 13/11/2010 14:38, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>> On 13/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>>>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>>>> "Tom Crispin" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> I doubt it, but I do not expect that the death threat was serious.
>>
>>>>>>> These threats *are* taken seriously, even when obviously a "joke".
>>>>>>> http://topnews.co.uk/216628-twitter-users-stand-airport-bomb-joker-who-lost-appeal
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> As you obviously didn't know, that cited case arises out of the fact that
>>>>>> there is a specific law against making "jokes" about bombs at airports or
>>>>>> in airport luggage.
>>>>>> Want to try again with a less irrelevant analogy?
>>
>>>>> No. The first one was fine, thank you.
>>
>>>> What, even though it wasn't an analogy?
>>
>>> If you didn't like that one, here are 3 more.
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jailed-Facebook-death-threats.html
>>>
>>> http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2082103_chef_jailed_for_pub_death_threat
>>> http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/4389443.Death_threat_man_gets_jail_sentence/?ref=mr
>>>
>>
>> What "threat" did that driver allegedly make, and what is your evidence for
>> saying it?
>
> The driver says:
>
> "You're a cocky little c**t mate"
>
> "Did you just try to kill me?"
>
> "Yeah, I did yeah"
>
> "You did?"
>
> "Yeah"
>
> "Are you sure?"
>
> "Yeah"

Is that your evidence of a "threat to kill"?

Or even a confession?

Simon Mason

November 13th 10, 03:43 PM

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Yeah"
>
> Is that your evidence of a "threat to kill"?
>
> Or even a confession?

Not *my* evidence. It did not happen to me, but the barrister.
I don't pretend to know as much about the law as him.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Sedentary IgnorantPopulist

November 13th 10, 03:45 PM

On 13 nov, 16:14, JNugent > wrote:
> On 13/11/2010 14:38, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>
>
> > "JNugent" > wrote:
> >> On 13/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:
> >>> "JNugent" > wrote:
> >>>> Simon Mason wrote:
> >>>>> "Tom Crispin" > wrote:
> >>>>>> I doubt it, but I do not expect that the death threat was serious.
> >>>>> These threats *are* taken seriously, even when obviously a "joke".
> >>>>>http://topnews.co.uk/216628-twitter-users-stand-airport-bomb-joker-wh...
> >>>> As you obviously didn't know, that cited case arises out of the fact that
> >>>> there is a specific law against making "jokes" about bombs at airports or
> >>>> in airport luggage.
> >>>> Want to try again with a less irrelevant analogy?
> >>> No. The first one was fine, thank you.
> >> What, even though it wasn't an analogy?
> > If you didn't like that one, here are 3 more.
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jail...
> >http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2082103_chef_jailed_for_pub_death_...
> >http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/4389443.Death_threat_man_gets_j...
>
> What "threat" did that driver allegedly make, and what is your evidence for
> saying it?

The driver quiet rightly said he was gonna kill the cyclist because
the stupid **** skweezed infront of him at the traffic island. He
shouldve looked behind and waited for tha car to ferst. Prick.

JNugent[_7_]

November 13th 10, 03:59 PM

On 13/11/2010 15:43, Simon Mason wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote:

>>> "Yeah"

>> Is that your evidence of a "threat to kill"?
>> Or even a confession?

> Not *my* evidence. It did not happen to me, but the barrister.
> I don't pretend to know as much about the law as him.

Go on... be a devil...

Make a guess...

Do you think there's the *slightest* possibility of a conviction based on
such an utterance?

And if you do think so - a conviction for what?

Simon Mason

November 13th 10, 04:08 PM

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 13/11/2010 15:43, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>
>>>> "Yeah"
>
>>> Is that your evidence of a "threat to kill"?
>>> Or even a confession?
>
>> Not *my* evidence. It did not happen to me, but the barrister.
>> I don't pretend to know as much about the law as him.
>
> Go on... be a devil...
>
> Make a guess...

I don't have to "guess" - the matter is not closed so we will see what the
eventual outcome will be.

> Do you think there's the *slightest* possibility of a conviction based on
> such an utterance?
>
> And if you do think so - a conviction for what?

Not my call.
Leave it to the legal experts.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

SW[_3_]

November 13th 10, 05:16 PM

On 13/11/2010 12:57, Sedentary IgnorantPopulist wrote:
>
> It's like what Dave said isnt it? The cyclist dont pay no tax for his
> ****ing toymobil

Apart from income tax and council tax that is.

SW

Trevor A Panther[_3_]

November 13th 10, 07:28 PM

"Mr. Benn" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Crispin" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 10:55:13 -0000, "Simon Mason"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mr. Benn" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Simon Mason" wrote in message
>>> . uk...
>>>
>>> A barrister films a motorist.
>>>
>>> http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-threat-video%E2%80%A6-insufficient-evidence-say-met-cps
>>> ==================
>>>
>>> The driver was a pillock but the cyclist's video reminds me of those
>>> taken
>>> by Ian Jackson in which he deliberately provokes drivers into doing
>>> stupid
>>> things.
>>
>>Or maybe he just films drivers doing stupid things.
>
> No, Jackson's films have clearly demonstrated a deliberately
> provocative attitude towards other road users. That in no way excuses
> the actions of some of the drivers towards Jackson, but his cycling
> style is certainly provocative.
> ==============
>
> I get the impression that Jackson goes out cycling with the intention of
> creating an incident so that he can record it on the two cameras fitted to
> his bike. And then whine to the police about it.
>
I must say that I agree with that.

One has only to visit his website (though it might have changed since I have
not looked at it for some time) to see the sort of mind set Mr Jackson
demonstrates in his obnoxious attitude as a provocative "mission" cyclist of
the worst kind.

--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

November 13th 10, 07:30 PM

On Nov 13, 5:16*pm, SW > wrote:
> On 13/11/2010 12:57, Sedentary IgnorantPopulist wrote:
>
>
>
> > It's like what Dave said isnt it? The cyclist dont pay no tax for his
> > ****ing toymobil
>
> Apart from income tax and council tax that is.
>
> SW

So if I cease cease to cycle where can I get a rebate on these taxes?

SW[_3_]

November 13th 10, 07:53 PM

On 13/11/2010 19:30, NM wrote:
> On Nov 13, 5:16 pm, > wrote:
>> On 13/11/2010 12:57, Sedentary IgnorantPopulist wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> It's like what Dave said isnt it? The cyclist dont pay no tax for his
>>> ****ing toymobil
>>
>> Apart from income tax and council tax that is.
>>
>> SW
>
> So if I cease cease to cycle where can I get a rebate on these taxes?

The same place you get a rebate on any public services you do not
personally make use of.

SW

Mr Pounder

November 13th 10, 08:38 PM

"Simon Mason" > wrote in message
. uk...
>
> "Tom Crispin" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I doubt it, but I do not expect that the death threat was serious.
>
> These threats *are* taken seriously, even when obviously a "joke".
>
> http://topnews.co.uk/216628-twitter-users-stand-airport-bomb-joker-who-lost-appeal
>
> The barrister has vowed to continue his fight. One hopes he will succeed
> in the long run.
>
> --
> Simon Mason
> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/
>
One does not.
Bow before a Barrister I know my place Mr Mason.

Mr Pounder
>

PhilO

November 13th 10, 11:34 PM

On Nov 13, 12:57*pm, Sedentary IgnorantPopulist
> wrote:
>
> It's like what Dave said isnt it? The cyclist dont pay no tax for his
> ****ing toymobil and should **** off out the way - tax free scums.

So, where does that leave those car drivers that aren't paying road
tax? Do they have to drive somewhere else in your world?

PhilO

Sedentary IgnorantPopulist

November 14th 10, 08:46 AM

On Nov 14, 12:34*am, PhilO > wrote:
> On Nov 13, 12:57*pm, Sedentary IgnorantPopulist
>
> > wrote:
>
> > It's like what Dave said isnt it? The cyclist dont pay no tax for his
> > ****ing toymobil and should **** off out the way - tax free scums.
>
> So, where does that leave those car drivers that aren't paying road
> tax? Do they have to drive somewhere else in your world?
>
> PhilO

They might have payed tax in the passed: anyway roads are ment for
cars. cycles are non vible.

PeterG

November 14th 10, 08:48 AM

Doug[_3_]

November 14th 10, 09:27 AM

On Nov 13, 10:33*am, "Simon Mason" >
wrote:
> A barrister films a motorist.
>
> http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
>
Ooh! At last somebody who agrees with me and a barrister too. I wish I
could cycle as fast as him though.

""We live in a car culture where the misdeeds of motorists are met
with a benign indulgence. Imagine if the threat had been made on the
street when the suspect had some other means at his disposal to carry
out his threat. I am disappointed that, as so often, aggression and
bad driving around cyclists is not being taken as seriously as it
should."

You notice he is referring obliquely to the use of a 'car weapon'.

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

Simon Mason[_4_]

November 14th 10, 10:03 AM

On Nov 14, 9:27*am, Doug > wrote:
> On Nov 13, 10:33*am, "Simon Mason" >
> wrote:> A barrister films a motorist.
>
> >http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
>
> Ooh! At last somebody who agrees with me and a barrister too. I wish I
> could cycle as fast as him though.
>
> ""We live in a car culture where the misdeeds of motorists are met
> with a benign indulgence. Imagine if the threat had been made on the
> street when the suspect had some other means at his disposal to carry
> out his threat. I am disappointed that, as so often, aggression and
> bad driving around cyclists is not being taken as seriously as it
> should."
>
> You notice he is referring obliquely to the use of a 'car weapon'.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Several cities and states in the USA are moving towards specific
cyclist anti harassment laws, never mind death threats.

https://sites.google.com/site/betterbikebh/news/anti-harassmentpolicyinlacouncil

--
Simon Mason

Justin[_3_]

November 14th 10, 10:34 AM

On 13 nov, 16:10, JNugent > wrote:
> On 13/11/2010 14:36, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> > "NM" > wrote:
> > "Simon Mason" > wrote:
> >> A barrister films a motorist.
> >>http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
> >> Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
> >> happened before the start of the tape.
> >> I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.
> > The matter is *not* closed.
>
> I couldn't hear what the driver said whilst driving, though I heard the
> cyclist say something like: "If you do that again, I'll ****ing kill you".
>
> The cyclist had initiated the exchange, presumably because he didn't like
> being overtaken, though he might have had other reasons.
>
> Later on, when the cyclist had caught up to the stationary car, he shouted
> something unintelligible over to the driver and the driver responded with a
> "Yeah, yeah", by which I understood him to mean something like "Whatever" or
> even perhaps "Whatever innit".
>
> Is anyone sensible under the impression that the video was "evidence" of any
> offence?

It does appear that the first inaudible threat of violence is
confirmed twice by the driver. How real is the threat? The driver is
in a motorised vehicle which can be used as a weapon and the cyclist
is in an extremely vunerable position/situation. The threat appears to
the cyclist as one of which the maker has a reasonable chance of
implementing.
Deeply disappointing that the CPS does not wish to take it further.

JMS

November 14th 10, 04:53 PM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:26:10 +0000, Phil W Lee >
wrote:

<snip>

>I seriously hope that he QC who was a victim of this threat manages to
>get a suitable sentence imposed for both offences, even if it requires
>a private prosecution owing to the refusal of the Metropolitan Police
>and the CPS to do the jobs they are paid for. I even wonder if such
>refusal may be criminal acts in themselves.

Hello Wanchor (note the spelling)

I do not have your deep understanding of matters legal - but I am sure
that the police and the CPS have both committed criminal acts as you
suggest.

Could you just do something for me - have a look outside and then tell
us what colour the sun is.

--
DfT: Year ending June 2010:

Pedestrian casualties down 3%
Car casualties down 3%
Motorcycle casualties down 6%
Motorcyclists KSI down 6%
Car users KSI down 9%
Pedestrians KSI down 8%

Oh - hang on - there are some missing :

Cyclist casualties up 4%
Cyclist KSI up 1%

JNugent[_7_]

November 14th 10, 05:35 PM

On 14/11/2010 10:34, Justin wrote:
> On 13 nov, 16:10, > wrote:
>> On 13/11/2010 14:36, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> "Simon > wrote:
>>>> A barrister films a motorist.
>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
>>>> Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
>>>> happened before the start of the tape.
>>>> I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.
>>> The matter is *not* closed.
>>
>> I couldn't hear what the driver said whilst driving, though I heard the
>> cyclist say something like: "If you do that again, I'll ****ing kill you".
>>
>> The cyclist had initiated the exchange, presumably because he didn't like
>> being overtaken, though he might have had other reasons.
>>
>> Later on, when the cyclist had caught up to the stationary car, he shouted
>> something unintelligible over to the driver and the driver responded with a
>> "Yeah, yeah", by which I understood him to mean something like "Whatever" or
>> even perhaps "Whatever innit".
>>
>> Is anyone sensible under the impression that the video was "evidence" of any
>> offence?
>
> It does appear that the first inaudible threat of violence is
> confirmed twice by the driver.

Do you mean the bit where he said the equivalent of "yeah, whatever"?

> How real is the threat?

What threat? You must mean the inaudible "spoken" one. A spoken threat no-one
can hear isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

But you knew that already.

> The driver is
> in a motorised vehicle which can be used as a weapon and the cyclist
> is in an extremely vunerable position/situation.

And what happened to him (despite his rather "forward" approach)?

> The threat appears to
> the cyclist as one of which the maker has a reasonable chance of
> implementing.

What threat?

> Deeply disappointing that the CPS does not wish to take it further.

Take what further?

Tom Crispin[_4_]

November 14th 10, 06:39 PM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:32:14 +0000, Phil W Lee >
wrote:

>Tom Crispin > considered Sat, 13 Nov 2010
>15:23:53 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:10:36 +0000, JNugent >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 13/11/2010 14:36, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>
>>>> "NM" > wrote:
>>>> "Simon Mason" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A barrister films a motorist.
>>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
>>>
>>>>> Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
>>>>> happened before the start of the tape.
>>>>> I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.
>>>
>>>> The matter is *not* closed.
>>>
>>>I couldn't hear what the driver said whilst driving, though I heard the
>>>cyclist say something like: "If you do that again, I'll ****ing kill you".
>>>
>>>The cyclist had initiated the exchange, presumably because he didn't like
>>>being overtaken, though he might have had other reasons.
>>>
>>>Later on, when the cyclist had caught up to the stationary car, he shouted
>>>something unintelligible over to the driver and the driver responded with a
>>>"Yeah, yeah", by which I understood him to mean something like "Whatever" or
>>>even perhaps "Whatever innit".
>>>
>>>Is anyone sensible under the impression that the video was "evidence" of any
>>>offence?
>>
>>I don't know, but I think the decision not to persue the matter by the
>>CPS is correct.
>
>I don't, and probably more importantly, neither does a barrister with
>25 years experience.
>>
>>My brother once threatened to kill me. I don't think he should be
>>prosecuted for such a deed.
>
>Was he using a weapon easily capable of carrying out the threat at the
>time?
>To be comparable, he would have to have been.

Really?

The errant motorist threatened to kill the man, and had the means to
do so under his control - yet he made no obvious move to kill the man.

My errant brother threatened to kill me, did not have the means to
carry out the threat, but if he had who knows what might have
happened?

JNugent[_7_]

November 14th 10, 08:46 PM

On 14/11/2010 20:31, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Simon > considered Sun, 14 Nov 2010 02:03:11
> -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Nov 14, 9:27 am, > wrote:
>>> On Nov 13, 10:33 am, "Simon >
>>> wrote:> A barrister films a motorist.
>>>
>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
>>>
>>> Ooh! At last somebody who agrees with me and a barrister too. I wish I
>>> could cycle as fast as him though.
>>>
>>> ""We live in a car culture where the misdeeds of motorists are met
>>> with a benign indulgence. Imagine if the threat had been made on the
>>> street when the suspect had some other means at his disposal to carry
>>> out his threat. I am disappointed that, as so often, aggression and
>>> bad driving around cyclists is not being taken as seriously as it
>>> should."
>>>
>>> You notice he is referring obliquely to the use of a 'car weapon'.
>>>
>>> -- .
>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>>
>> Several cities and states in the USA are moving towards specific
>> cyclist anti harassment laws, never mind death threats.
>>
>> https://sites.google.com/site/betterbikebh/news/anti-harassmentpolicyinlacouncil
>
> Unfortunately, in most cases that would be a downgrading of the
> penalty, rather than any genuine improvement in conditions.
>
> What is needed is for the authorities to treat such matters with the
> seriousness that they deserve, and prosecute under existing (and
> perfectly adequate) laws covering threatening behaviour, assault,
> attempted murder, etc.

With ot without credible evidence, you mean?

November 14th 10, 10:20 PM

On Nov 14, 8:19*pm, Phil W Lee > wrote:
> Sedentary IgnorantPopulist >
> considered Sun, 14 Nov 2010 00:46:27 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to
> write:
>
> >On Nov 14, 12:34*am, PhilO > wrote:
> >> On Nov 13, 12:57*pm, Sedentary IgnorantPopulist
>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > It's like what Dave said isnt it? The cyclist dont pay no tax for his
> >> > ****ing toymobil and should **** off out the way - tax free scums.
>
> >> So, where does that leave those car drivers that aren't paying road
> >> tax? Do they have to drive somewhere else in your world?
>
> >> PhilO
>
> >They might have payed tax in the passed: anyway roads are ment for
> >cars. cycles are non vible.
>
> Aren't you worried that posting at that time in the morning might make
> you late for school?
> Or is your complete absence of any linguistic ability an indication
> that you don't bother to attend anyway?
>
> You should at least wait until you have mastered the primary school
> curriculum before attempting such advanced subjects as posting on
> Usenet.

Fool. It's Sunday, there is no school today, don't tell me you got all
ready for nothing, didn't your mum tell you.

Peter Keller

November 14th 10, 11:25 PM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:53:29 +0000, JMS wrote:

>
> Hello Wanchor (note the spelling)
>
>
> I do not have your deep understanding of matters legal - but I am sure
> that the police and the CPS have both committed criminal acts as you
> suggest.
>
>
> Could you just do something for me - have a look outside and then tell
> us what colour the sun is.

it is blood-curdling purple

>
> --

<snip>

--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

Rob Morley

November 15th 10, 07:17 AM

On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 20:19:57 +0000
Phil W Lee > wrote:

> Sedentary IgnorantPopulist >
> considered Sun, 14 Nov 2010 00:46:27 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to
> write:
>
> >On Nov 14, 12:34*am, PhilO > wrote:
> >> On Nov 13, 12:57*pm, Sedentary IgnorantPopulist
> >>
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > It's like what Dave said isnt it? The cyclist dont pay no tax
> >> > for his ****ing toymobil and should **** off out the way - tax
> >> > free scums.
> >>
> >> So, where does that leave those car drivers that aren't paying road
> >> tax? Do they have to drive somewhere else in your world?
> >>
> >> PhilO
> >
> >They might have payed tax in the passed: anyway roads are ment for
> >cars. cycles are non vible.
>
> Aren't you worried that posting at that time in the morning might make
> you late for school?
> Or is your complete absence of any linguistic ability an indication
> that you don't bother to attend anyway?
>
> You should at least wait until you have mastered the primary school
> curriculum before attempting such advanced subjects as posting on
> Usenet.

You might want to take a step back and a few slow deep breaths, or even
sit down with a cup of tea, before any more flaming.

Justin[_3_]

November 15th 10, 09:29 PM

On 14 nov, 18:35, JNugent > wrote:
> On 14/11/2010 10:34, Justin wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 nov, 16:10, > *wrote:
> >> On 13/11/2010 14:36, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> >>> > *wrote:
> >>> "Simon > *wrote:
> >>>> A barrister films a motorist.
> >>>>http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th....
> >>>> Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
> >>>> happened before the start of the tape.
> >>>> I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.
> >>> The matter is *not* closed.
>
> >> I couldn't hear what the driver said whilst driving, though I heard the
> >> cyclist say something like: "If you do that again, I'll ****ing kill you".
>
> >> The cyclist had initiated the exchange, presumably because he didn't like
> >> being overtaken, though he might have had other reasons.
>
> >> Later on, when the cyclist had caught up to the stationary car, he shouted
> >> something unintelligible over to the driver and the driver responded with a
> >> "Yeah, yeah", by which I understood him to mean something like "Whatever" or
> >> even perhaps "Whatever innit".
>
> >> Is anyone sensible under the impression that the video was "evidence" of any
> >> offence?
>
> > It does appear that the first inaudible threat of violence is
> > confirmed twice by the driver.
>
> Do you mean the bit where he said the equivalent of "yeah, whatever"?
>
> > How real is the threat?
>
> What threat? You must mean the inaudible "spoken" one. A spoken threat no-one
> can hear isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
>
> But you knew that already.
>
> > The driver is
> > in a motorised vehicle which can be used as a weapon and the cyclist
> > is in an extremely vunerable position/situation.
>
> And what happened to him (despite his rather "forward" approach)?
>
> > The threat appears to
> > the cyclist as one of which the maker has a reasonable chance of
> > implementing.
>
> What threat?
>
> > Deeply disappointing that the CPS does not wish to take it further.
>
> Take what further?

"Did you just threaten to kill me?
"Yeah, I did, yes.
"You did?"
"Yeah."
"You sure?"
"Yes"

That is a threat to kill coupled with the possibility to implement it.

November 15th 10, 09:39 PM

On Nov 15, 10:29*pm, Justin > wrote:
> On 14 nov, 18:35, JNugent > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14/11/2010 10:34, Justin wrote:
>
> > > On 13 nov, 16:10, > *wrote:
> > >> On 13/11/2010 14:36, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> > >>> > *wrote:
> > >>> "Simon > *wrote:
> > >>>> A barrister films a motorist.
> > >>>>http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
> > >>>> Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
> > >>>> happened before the start of the tape.
> > >>>> I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.

JNugent[_7_]

November 15th 10, 11:36 PM

On 15/11/2010 21:29, Justin wrote:
> On 14 nov, 18:35, > wrote:
>> On 14/11/2010 10:34, Justin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 13 nov, 16:10, > wrote:
>>>> On 13/11/2010 14:36, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> "Simon > wrote:
>>>>>> A barrister films a motorist.
>>>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
>>>>>> Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
>>>>>> happened before the start of the tape.
>>>>>> I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.
>>>>> The matter is *not* closed.
>>
>>>> I couldn't hear what the driver said whilst driving, though I heard the
>>>> cyclist say something like: "If you do that again, I'll ****ing kill you".
>>
>>>> The cyclist had initiated the exchange, presumably because he didn't like
>>>> being overtaken, though he might have had other reasons.
>>
>>>> Later on, when the cyclist had caught up to the stationary car, he shouted
>>>> something unintelligible over to the driver and the driver responded with a
>>>> "Yeah, yeah", by which I understood him to mean something like "Whatever" or
>>>> even perhaps "Whatever innit".
>>
>>>> Is anyone sensible under the impression that the video was "evidence" of any
>>>> offence?
>>
>>> It does appear that the first inaudible threat of violence is
>>> confirmed twice by the driver.
>>
>> Do you mean the bit where he said the equivalent of "yeah, whatever"?
>>
>>> How real is the threat?
>>
>> What threat? You must mean the inaudible "spoken" one. A spoken threat no-one
>> can hear isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
>>
>> But you knew that already.
>>
>>> The driver is
>>> in a motorised vehicle which can be used as a weapon and the cyclist
>>> is in an extremely vunerable position/situation.
>>
>> And what happened to him (despite his rather "forward" approach)?
>>
>>> The threat appears to
>>> the cyclist as one of which the maker has a reasonable chance of
>>> implementing.
>>
>> What threat?
>>
>>> Deeply disappointing that the CPS does not wish to take it further.
>>
>> Take what further?
>
> "Did you just threaten to kill me?
> "Yeah, I did, yes.
> "You did?"
> "Yeah."
> "You sure?"
> "Yes"
>
> That is a threat to kill coupled with the possibility to implement it.

Do you know what a tense is?

Do you understand sarcasm or dismissive insouciance?

Justin[_3_]

November 16th 10, 08:34 AM

On 16 nov, 00:36, JNugent > wrote:
> On 15/11/2010 21:29, Justin wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 14 nov, 18:35, > *wrote:
> >> On 14/11/2010 10:34, Justin wrote:
>
> >>> On 13 nov, 16:10, > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 13/11/2010 14:36, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> >>>>> > * *wrote:
> >>>>> "Simon > * *wrote:
> >>>>>> A barrister films a motorist.
> >>>>>>http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
> >>>>>> Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
> >>>>>> happened before the start of the tape.
> >>>>>> I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.

JMS

November 16th 10, 01:36 PM

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:34:08 -0800 (PST), Justin
> wrote:

<snip>

>I teach English. What do you mean with the referral to a tense?
>
>Sarcasm is a sharp and often ironic or stairical utterance.

Hello "Dick" - may I call you that?

I do not teach English. What does the word "stairical" mean?

--

Latest figures from DfT: KSI per billion passenger kilometres:

Van: 5 people
Bus/Coach: 9 people
Car : 18 people
Pedestrians: 358 people

Oh : and of course cyclists:
Cyclists: 541 people

Of those four modes of transport - which is the most dangerous?

(With thanks to Justin Lewis for asking me to find out the figures)

JNugent[_7_]

November 16th 10, 03:52 PM

On 16/11/2010 08:34, Justin wrote:
> On 16 nov, 00:36, > wrote:
>> On 15/11/2010 21:29, Justin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 14 nov, 18:35, > wrote:
>>>> On 14/11/2010 10:34, Justin wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 13 nov, 16:10, > wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/11/2010 14:36, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> "Simon > wrote:
>>>>>>>> A barrister films a motorist.
>>>>>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
>>>>>>>> Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
>>>>>>>> happened before the start of the tape.
>>>>>>>> I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.
>>>>>>> The matter is *not* closed.
>>
>>>>>> I couldn't hear what the driver said whilst driving, though I heard the
>>>>>> cyclist say something like: "If you do that again, I'll ****ing kill you".
>>
>>>>>> The cyclist had initiated the exchange, presumably because he didn't like
>>>>>> being overtaken, though he might have had other reasons.
>>
>>>>>> Later on, when the cyclist had caught up to the stationary car, he shouted
>>>>>> something unintelligible over to the driver and the driver responded with a
>>>>>> "Yeah, yeah", by which I understood him to mean something like "Whatever" or
>>>>>> even perhaps "Whatever innit".
>>
>>>>>> Is anyone sensible under the impression that the video was "evidence" of any
>>>>>> offence?
>>
>>>>> It does appear that the first inaudible threat of violence is
>>>>> confirmed twice by the driver.
>>
>>>> Do you mean the bit where he said the equivalent of "yeah, whatever"?
>>
>>>>> How real is the threat?
>>
>>>> What threat? You must mean the inaudible "spoken" one. A spoken threat no-one
>>>> can hear isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
>>
>>>> But you knew that already.
>>
>>>>> The driver is
>>>>> in a motorised vehicle which can be used as a weapon and the cyclist
>>>>> is in an extremely vunerable position/situation.
>>
>>>> And what happened to him (despite his rather "forward" approach)?
>>
>>>>> The threat appears to
>>>>> the cyclist as one of which the maker has a reasonable chance of
>>>>> implementing.
>>
>>>> What threat?
>>
>>>>> Deeply disappointing that the CPS does not wish to take it further.
>>
>>>> Take what further?
>>
>>> "Did you just threaten to kill me?
>>> "Yeah, I did, yes.
>>> "You did?"
>>> "Yeah."
>>> "You sure?"
>>> "Yes"
>>
>>> That is a threat to kill coupled with the possibility to implement it.
>>
>> Do you know what a tense is?
>>
>> Do you understand sarcasm or dismissive insouciance?
>
> I teach English. What do you mean with the referral to a tense?

You teach English and you don't know whay I ask about tense?

Do you think a threat can be issued in the past tense?

> Sarcasm is a sharp and often ironic or stairical utterance. The first
> utterance is inaudible as pointed out in this thread. Interested to
> see where the irony or satire is in the above quote (preceded by "You
> are a cocky little ****, mate." Just for the context.

"Did you try to kill me?"

"Yeah, mate, whatever, innit?" (or words to that effect).

Threat, or sarcastic dismissal of an aggressive lout?

You choose.

JNugent[_7_]

November 16th 10, 03:54 PM

On 16/11/2010 13:36, JMS wrote:

> Justin > wrote:

> <snip>

>> I teach English. What do you mean with the referral to a tense?

>> Sarcasm is a sharp and often ironic or stairical utterance.

> Hello "Dick" - may I call you that?

> I do not teach English. What does the word "stairical" mean?

And the correct term would be "reference", not "referral", a word which bears
a superficial similarity to "reference" but has a completely different meaning.

Justin[_3_]

November 17th 10, 10:44 AM

On 16 nov, 16:52, JNugent > wrote:
> On 16/11/2010 08:34, Justin wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 nov, 00:36, > *wrote:
> >> On 15/11/2010 21:29, Justin wrote:
>
> >>> On 14 nov, 18:35, > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 14/11/2010 10:34, Justin wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 13 nov, 16:10, > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 13/11/2010 14:36, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Simon > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> A barrister films a motorist.
> >>>>>>>>http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
> >>>>>>>> Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
> >>>>>>>> happened before the start of the tape.
> >>>>>>>> I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.
> >>>>>>> The matter is *not* closed.
>
> >>>>>> I couldn't hear what the driver said whilst driving, though I heard the
> >>>>>> cyclist say something like: "If you do that again, I'll ****ing kill you".
>
> >>>>>> The cyclist had initiated the exchange, presumably because he didn't like
> >>>>>> being overtaken, though he might have had other reasons.
>
> >>>>>> Later on, when the cyclist had caught up to the stationary car, he shouted
> >>>>>> something unintelligible over to the driver and the driver responded with a
> >>>>>> "Yeah, yeah", by which I understood him to mean something like "Whatever" or
> >>>>>> even perhaps "Whatever innit".
>
> >>>>>> Is anyone sensible under the impression that the video was "evidence" of any
> >>>>>> offence?
>
> >>>>> It does appear that the first inaudible threat of violence is
> >>>>> confirmed twice by the driver.
>
> >>>> Do you mean the bit where he said the equivalent of "yeah, whatever"?
>
> >>>>> How real is the threat?
>
> >>>> What threat? You must mean the inaudible "spoken" one. A spoken threat no-one
> >>>> can hear isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
>
> >>>> But you knew that already.
>
> >>>>> The driver is
> >>>>> in a motorised vehicle which can be used as a weapon and the cyclist
> >>>>> is in an extremely vunerable position/situation.
>
> >>>> And what happened to him (despite his rather "forward" approach)?
>
> >>>>> The threat appears to
> >>>>> the cyclist as one of which the maker has a reasonable chance of
> >>>>> implementing.
>
> >>>> What threat?
>
> >>>>> Deeply disappointing that the CPS does not wish to take it further.
>
> >>>> Take what further?
>
> >>> "Did you just threaten to kill me?
> >>> "Yeah, I did, yes.
> >>> "You did?"
> >>> "Yeah."
> >>> "You sure?"
> >>> "Yes"
>
> >>> That is a threat to kill coupled with the possibility to implement it..
>
> >> Do you know what a tense is?
>
> >> Do you understand sarcasm or dismissive insouciance?
>
> > I teach English. What do you mean with the referral to a tense?
>
> You teach English and you don't know whay I ask about tense?
>
> Do you think a threat can be issued in the past tense?
>
> > Sarcasm is a sharp and often ironic or stairical utterance. The first
> > utterance is inaudible as pointed out in this thread. Interested to
> > see where the irony or satire is in the above quote (preceded by "You
> > are a cocky little ****, mate." Just for the context.
>
> "Did you try to kill me?"
>
> "Yeah, mate, whatever, innit?" (or words to that effect).
That is not exactly what was said. You are attempting to soften his
exact words: "Yeah, I did. Yes." A triple affirmative response to the
question "Did you just threaten to kill me?"Another affirmative
response to being asked if he was sure that that was what he had said.
>
> Threat, or sarcastic dismissal of an aggressive lout?
A threat with the means of implementation.
> You choose.

Justin[_3_]

November 17th 10, 10:45 AM

On 16 nov, 16:54, JNugent > wrote:
> On 16/11/2010 13:36, JMS wrote:
>
> > Justin > *wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> I teach English. What do you mean with the referral to a tense?
> >> Sarcasm is a sharp and often ironic or stairical utterance.
> > Hello "Dick" - may I call you that?
> > I do not teach English. *What does the word "stairical" mean?
>
> And the correct term would be "reference", not "referral", a word which bears
> a superficial similarity to "reference" but has a completely different meaning.

Yes: I made a mistake there. No problems - we all do. You are
completely correct.

JNugent[_7_]

November 17th 10, 07:03 PM

On 17/11/2010 10:44, Justin wrote:
> On 16 nov, 16:52, > wrote:
>> On 16/11/2010 08:34, Justin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 16 nov, 00:36, > wrote:
>>>> On 15/11/2010 21:29, Justin wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 14 nov, 18:35, > wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/11/2010 10:34, Justin wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On 13 nov, 16:10, > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 13/11/2010 14:36, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Simon > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> A barrister films a motorist.
>>>>>>>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/27275-cycling-barrister-captures-death-th...
>>>>>>>>>> Seems to me the motorist was provoked, I would like to have seen what
>>>>>>>>>> happened before the start of the tape.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm happy there was no waste of public money bringing a prosecution.
>>>>>>>>> The matter is *not* closed.
>>
>>>>>>>> I couldn't hear what the driver said whilst driving, though I heard the
>>>>>>>> cyclist say something like: "If you do that again, I'll ****ing kill you".
>>
>>>>>>>> The cyclist had initiated the exchange, presumably because he didn't like
>>>>>>>> being overtaken, though he might have had other reasons.
>>
>>>>>>>> Later on, when the cyclist had caught up to the stationary car, he shouted
>>>>>>>> something unintelligible over to the driver and the driver responded with a
>>>>>>>> "Yeah, yeah", by which I understood him to mean something like "Whatever" or
>>>>>>>> even perhaps "Whatever innit".
>>
>>>>>>>> Is anyone sensible under the impression that the video was "evidence" of any
>>>>>>>> offence?
>>
>>>>>>> It does appear that the first inaudible threat of violence is
>>>>>>> confirmed twice by the driver.
>>
>>>>>> Do you mean the bit where he said the equivalent of "yeah, whatever"?
>>
>>>>>>> How real is the threat?
>>
>>>>>> What threat? You must mean the inaudible "spoken" one. A spoken threat no-one
>>>>>> can hear isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
>>
>>>>>> But you knew that already.
>>
>>>>>>> The driver is
>>>>>>> in a motorised vehicle which can be used as a weapon and the cyclist
>>>>>>> is in an extremely vunerable position/situation.
>>
>>>>>> And what happened to him (despite his rather "forward" approach)?
>>
>>>>>>> The threat appears to
>>>>>>> the cyclist as one of which the maker has a reasonable chance of
>>>>>>> implementing.
>>
>>>>>> What threat?
>>
>>>>>>> Deeply disappointing that the CPS does not wish to take it further.
>>
>>>>>> Take what further?
>>
>>>>> "Did you just threaten to kill me?
>>>>> "Yeah, I did, yes.
>>>>> "You did?"
>>>>> "Yeah."
>>>>> "You sure?"
>>>>> "Yes"
>>
>>>>> That is a threat to kill coupled with the possibility to implement it.
>>
>>>> Do you know what a tense is?
>>
>>>> Do you understand sarcasm or dismissive insouciance?
>>
>>> I teach English. What do you mean with the referral to a tense?
>>
>> You teach English and you don't know whay I ask about tense?
>>
>> Do you think a threat can be issued in the past tense?
>>
>>> Sarcasm is a sharp and often ironic or stairical utterance. The first
>>> utterance is inaudible as pointed out in this thread. Interested to
>>> see where the irony or satire is in the above quote (preceded by "You
>>> are a cocky little ****, mate." Just for the context.
>>
>> "Did you try to kill me?"
>>
>> "Yeah, mate, whatever, innit?" (or words to that effect).
> That is not exactly what was said. You are attempting to soften his
> exact words: "Yeah, I did. Yes." A triple affirmative response to the
> question "Did you just threaten to kill me?"Another affirmative
> response to being asked if he was sure that that was what he had said.
>>
>> Threat, or sarcastic dismissal of an aggressive lout?
> A threat with the means of implementation.
>> You choose.

You really don't "get" the English lalnguage (and the concept of time - and
therefore tenses), do you?

JMS

November 17th 10, 07:23 PM

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 02:44:30 -0800 (PST), Justin
> wrote:

<snip>

>> "Yeah, mate, whatever, innit?" (or words to that effect).
>That is not exactly what was said. You are attempting to soften his
>exact words: "Yeah, I did. Yes." A triple affirmative response to the
>question "Did you just threaten to kill me?"Another affirmative
>response to being asked if he was sure that that was what he had said.

Hello Dick (may I call you that?)

Are you competing with Porky Chapman for knob of the year.

You are running a very close second.

--

Latest figures from DfT: KSI per billion passenger kilometres:

Van: 5 people
Bus/Coach: 9 people
Car : 18 people
Pedestrians: 358 people

Oh : and of course cyclists:
Cyclists: 541 people

Of those four modes of transport - which is the most dangerous?

(With thanks to Justin Lewis for asking me to find out the figures)

Peter Keller

November 18th 10, 08:22 AM

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:23:40 +0000, JMS wrote:

>
> Hello Dick (may I call you that?)
>
> Are you competing with Porky Chapman for knob of the year.
>
> You are running a very close second.
>
>

So I happily present the hagfish. They're usually about 18 inches long
and, like a lamprey, they can attach themselves to other fish and slowly
eat them alive. But unlike the lamprey, the hagfish has a special ability
to tie itself in knots...this ability gives it traction, allowing it to
actually INSERT itself into other fish...and eat them from the inside out.
> --

<snip>

--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

Mr Pounder

November 20th 10, 06:56 PM

"Sedentary IgnorantPopulist" > wrote in
message
...
> On 13 nov, 16:14, JNugent > wrote:
>> On 13/11/2010 14:38, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "JNugent" > wrote:
>> >> On 13/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:
>> >>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>> >>>> Simon Mason wrote:
>> >>>>> "Tom Crispin" > wrote:
>> >>>>>> I doubt it, but I do not expect that the death threat was serious.
>> >>>>> These threats *are* taken seriously, even when obviously a "joke".
>> >>>>>http://topnews.co.uk/216628-twitter-users-stand-airport-bomb-joker-wh...
>> >>>> As you obviously didn't know, that cited case arises out of the fact
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> there is a specific law against making "jokes" about bombs at
>> >>>> airports or
>> >>>> in airport luggage.
>> >>>> Want to try again with a less irrelevant analogy?
>> >>> No. The first one was fine, thank you.
>> >> What, even though it wasn't an analogy?
>> > If you didn't like that one, here are 3 more.
>> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jail...
>> >http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2082103_chef_jailed_for_pub_death_...
>> >http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/4389443.Death_threat_man_gets_j...
>>
>> What "threat" did that driver allegedly make, and what is your evidence
>> for
>> saying it?
>
> The driver quiet rightly said he was gonna kill the cyclist because
> the stupid **** skweezed infront of him at the traffic island. He
> shouldve looked behind and waited for tha car to ferst. Prick.

Hmmmmmm

Mr Pounder