|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"
francis wrote:
On Nov 17, 9:37 am, Doug wrote: On Nov 17, 9:10 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...er_as_cyclist_... I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed. Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't. -- . UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. I think you mean, that the person who is blameworthy is to blame. not in dougworld. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"
On 17/11/2010 16:13, Justin wrote:
On 17 nov, 15:51, wrote: On Nov 17, 2:39 pm, wrote: On 17 nov, 11:40, wrote: On Nov 17, 10:25 am, wrote: On 17 nov, 11:16, wrote: On Nov 17, 9:37 am, wrote: On Nov 17, 9:10 am, wrote: Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...er_as_cyclist_... I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed. Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't. Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal desire to cycle where they like. The proposition from the EU (and the law in a number of European countries such as Holland) has nothing to do with criminal responsibility nor even accountability. Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the roads& pavements want others using these spaces around them to be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence. First, I take it you have statistics on your caim about lawbreaking (including speeding and using a telephone whilst at the wheel) which you will produce. Thanks. Second, as I have already said this proposed law has nothing at all to do with guilt and therefore your reference to what cyclists (in your opinion) want is redundant. How ridiculous is this mentality, which just goes to show how out of touch as a group they really are. All I can say is thank the stars that the far left is not in a position to push through these barmy and biased laws any more! Why would you equate moves towards safer roads as a far left position? The right wish to see more dangerous roads? The far left jumped on the band wagon to 'out green' the other political parties. As cycling is viewed as a uber green mode and so became a favourite for public demonstrations of planet saving. That has nothing to do with the reversal of the burden of truth. I do like that phrase. If some cyclists were ever to get their way on that ridiculous demand for innocent parties to be deemed to be at fault, the truth of any relevant "incident" would indeed have become irrelevant. The law would simply substitute a lie for the truth. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"
On 17 nov, 20:02, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2010 16:13, Justin wrote: On 17 nov, 15:51, *wrote: On Nov 17, 2:39 pm, *wrote: On 17 nov, 11:40, *wrote: On Nov 17, 10:25 am, *wrote: On 17 nov, 11:16, *wrote: On Nov 17, 9:37 am, *wrote: On Nov 17, 9:10 am, *wrote: Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...er_as_cyclist_... I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed. Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't.. Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal desire to cycle where they like. The proposition from the EU (and the law in a number of European countries such as Holland) has nothing to do with criminal responsibility nor even accountability. Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the roads& *pavements want others using these spaces around them to be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence. First, I take it you have statistics on your caim about lawbreaking (including speeding and using a telephone whilst at the wheel) which you will produce. Thanks. Second, as I have already said this proposed law has nothing at all to do with guilt and therefore your reference to what cyclists (in your opinion) want is redundant. How ridiculous is this mentality, which just goes to show how out of touch as a group they really are. All I can say is thank the stars that the far left is not in a position to push through these barmy and biased laws any more! Why would you equate moves towards safer roads as a far left position? The right wish to see more dangerous roads? The far left jumped on the band wagon to 'out green' the other political parties. As *cycling is viewed as a uber green mode and so became a favourite for public demonstrations of planet saving. That has nothing to do with the reversal of the burden of truth. I do like that phrase. If some cyclists were ever to get their way on that ridiculous demand for innocent parties to be deemed to be at fault, the truth of any relevant "incident" would indeed have become irrelevant. The law would simply substitute a lie for the truth. I apologise for my oversight: I meant to type "burden of proof". That was completely unintentional, sorry. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"
On 17/11/2010 10:40, ash wrote:
On Nov 17, 10:25 am, wrote: On 17 nov, 11:16, wrote: On Nov 17, 9:37 am, wrote: On Nov 17, 9:10 am, wrote: Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...er_as_cyclist_... I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed. Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't. -- . UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal desire to cycle where they like. The proposition from the EU (and the law in a number of European countries such as Holland) has nothing to do with criminal responsibility nor even accountability.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the roads& pavements Do you have figures to back this up? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"
On 17/11/10 22:02, OG wrote:
On 17/11/2010 10:40, ash wrote: - Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the roads& pavements Do you have figures to back this up? Of course he does, it's called "I think, therefore I know". |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"
On 17/11/2010 21:28, Justin wrote:
On 17 nov, 20:02, wrote: On 17/11/2010 16:13, Justin wrote: On 17 nov, 15:51, wrote: On Nov 17, 2:39 pm, wrote: On 17 nov, 11:40, wrote: On Nov 17, 10:25 am, wrote: On 17 nov, 11:16, wrote: On Nov 17, 9:37 am, wrote: On Nov 17, 9:10 am, wrote: Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...er_as_cyclist_... I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed. Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't. Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal desire to cycle where they like. The proposition from the EU (and the law in a number of European countries such as Holland) has nothing to do with criminal responsibility nor even accountability. Cyclists who as a group who are by far the biggest law breakers on the roads& pavements want others using these spaces around them to be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence. First, I take it you have statistics on your caim about lawbreaking (including speeding and using a telephone whilst at the wheel) which you will produce. Thanks. Second, as I have already said this proposed law has nothing at all to do with guilt and therefore your reference to what cyclists (in your opinion) want is redundant. How ridiculous is this mentality, which just goes to show how out of touch as a group they really are. All I can say is thank the stars that the far left is not in a position to push through these barmy and biased laws any more! Why would you equate moves towards safer roads as a far left position? The right wish to see more dangerous roads? The far left jumped on the band wagon to 'out green' the other political parties. As cycling is viewed as a uber green mode and so became a favourite for public demonstrations of planet saving. That has nothing to do with the reversal of the burden of truth. I do like that phrase. If some cyclists were ever to get their way on that ridiculous demand for innocent parties to be deemed to be at fault, the truth of any relevant "incident" would indeed have become irrelevant. The law would simply substitute a lie for the truth. I apologise for my oversight: I meant to type "burden of proof". That was completely unintentional, sorry. Don't apologise. You were right frst time. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"
On Nov 17, 10:16*am, ash wrote:
On Nov 17, 9:37*am, Doug wrote: On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...er_as_cyclist_.... I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed. Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't. Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal desire to cycle where they like. I glad you agree toddlers should also be protected from much more dangerous drivers but they are not. Driving and parking on pavements should be banned completely. The reason cyclists suffer the inconvenience of cycling on pavements, amid the clutter and pedestrian crowds, is because they consider the roads much too unsafe, which they are due to dangerous drivers. So what is behind all of this? Dangerous drivers. -- . UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"
On 19/11/2010 06:32, Doug wrote:
On Nov 17, 10:16 am, wrote: On Nov 17, 9:37 am, wrote: On Nov 17, 9:10 am, wrote: Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...er_as_cyclist_... I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed. Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't. Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal desire to cycle where they like. I glad you agree toddlers should also be protected from much more dangerous drivers but they are not. Driving and parking on pavements should be banned completely. The reason cyclists suffer the inconvenience of cycling on pavements, amid the clutter and pedestrian crowds, is because they consider the roads much too unsafe, which they are due to dangerous drivers. We can't have the lawbreaking cyclist inconvenienced by those pedestrians on the pavements, can we? So what is behind all of this? Dangerous drivers. -- . UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. -- Tony Dragon |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
about this:" the most vulnerable is the innocent one"
On Nov 19, 6:32*am, Doug wrote:
On Nov 17, 10:16*am, ash wrote: On Nov 17, 9:37*am, Doug wrote: On Nov 17, 9:10*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Pavement cyclist blames toddler for getting in his way http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...er_as_cyclist_... I am glad you now agree that the most vulnerable should not be blamed.. Obviously this same rule should also be applied to cyclists who are killed or injured by motorists, as the EU wanted to do but didn't. Er Doug - a toddler cannot be held accountable for their actions due to them being below the age od criminal responsibility. They need protecting from those who should klnow better but insist on invading invade the safe environment of a pavement in their selfish and illegal desire to cycle where they like. I glad you agree toddlers should also be protected from much more dangerous drivers but they are not. Driving and parking on pavements should be banned completely. The reason cyclists suffer the inconvenience of cycling on pavements, amid the clutter and pedestrian crowds, is because they consider the roads much too unsafe, which they are due to dangerous drivers. So what is behind all of this? Dangerous drivers. -- . UK Radical Campaigns. *http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Don't forget idiot electric bike users blasting along on the pavemements either because toddlers are softer to run into than cars Doug ! |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The toddler is the innocent party in this, anyone selfish enough to ride in a pedestrian area should be punished.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
:jg%e Innocent or Gullable? :jg%eo" | rogers | General | 0 | July 1st 08 06:22 PM |
"John "Cho" Gilmer keeps publishing his "Manifesto" over and over." | Hoodini | Racing | 0 | April 23rd 07 12:38 AM |
"What If Floyd Landis Were Innocent?" | MMan | Racing | 16 | August 18th 06 08:01 PM |
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") | spin156 | Techniques | 15 | November 28th 05 07:21 PM |