Chapman: "Prosecute Drivers who Make Way for Emergency Vehicles at Red Lights"

Guy Chapman thinks (along with others here, no doubt) that drivers who
make way for emergency vehicles by carefully going through red lights
should be prosecuted and convicted. This shows that not only is he
anti-motorist, but he is prepared for innocent people to die just so
that motorists can be persecuted. In this case, the innocent people
are those who the emergency services can't get to or take to hospital
because drivers won't go through red lights for fear of prosecution.

Don't believe me? Ask Chapman yourself. You won't get much out of
him: this is one of those subjects that he refuses to talk about,
because he doesn't want to admit the truth, nor does he want to lie
(in other words it's another Lhuh Gnii-type thing).

Do you think drivers who make way for emergency vehicles should be
prosecuted *and* not have any legal defence available to them in
court? If so, it would seem (unless you can show otherwise) that you
are also an anti-motorist monster with blood on your hands. What is
the point of prosecuting such drivers, and why would you want them to
be prosecuted, unless you were anti-motorist to such an extent that
you were prepared for people to die just so that motorists could be
given a hard time? What other possible reason would one have for
advocating such prosecutions? I bet you can't come up with anything.

Anyone who is remotely reasonable, and who doesn't consider
persecuting motorists to be more important than saving innocent
people's lives, must surely be of the opinion that we should not be
prosecuting motorists who carefully make way for emergency vehicles at
red lights. Unless anyone has any remotely good arguments to the
contrary?

"Old Scarface" wrote in message
...
Guy Chapman thinks (along with others here, no doubt) that drivers who
make way for emergency vehicles by carefully going through red lights
should be prosecuted and convicted.

When and where did he say this?

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:15:00 +0100, "Mr Benn"
wrote:

When and where did he say this?

I didn't, it's just nuxx going off on one again.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:15:00 +0100, "Mr Benn"
wrote:

When and where did he say this?

I didn't, it's just nuxx going off on one again.

Where do you get them from! I swear you are some kind of quantum
supersition for every ****ing nutcase on usenet.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:48:19 +0200, Tosspot
wrote:

Where do you get them from! I swear you are some kind of quantum
supersition for every ****ing nutcase on usenet.

I wish I knew, I'd take them back and swap them for something more
useful. Like a fishbike.

But this is not a new one, is it? The language is a dead giveaway.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

On Sep 30, 7:48*pm, Tosspot wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

I didn't, it's just nuxx going off on one again.

Where do you get them from!

He's persistent.

--
Dave...

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:52:06 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:15:00 +0100, "Mr Benn"
wrote:

When and where did he say this?

I didn't, it's just nuxx going off on one again.

In that case you won't mind just confirming that you *don't* think
that, will you (as of course you would have above had you felt able to
do so truthfully)?

[tumbleweed]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:53:03 +0100, "Old Bleary-Eyes"
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:52:06 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:15:00 +0100, "Mr Benn"
wrote:

When and where did he say this?

I didn't, it's just nuxx going off on one again.

In that case you won't mind just confirming that you *don't* think
that, will you (as of course you would have above had you felt able to
do so truthfully)?

[tumbleweed]

Surprise surprise, Chapman seems to have "missed" the above post. What
a vile, dishonest person he is. If he thinks drivers should be
prosecuted for making way for emergency vehicles at red lights, why
does he not just admit it, instead of trying to obfuscate? There can
only be one explanation: he knows that if he admits it then his hatred
of motorists, and his prioritising of that hatred above the safety of
innocent people, will be there for all to see (as if it isn't
already).

Pathetic, as ever.

In ,
Old ****face tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Surprise surprise, Chapman seems to have "missed" the above post. What
a vile, dishonest person he is. If he thinks drivers should be
prosecuted for making way for emergency vehicles at red lights, why
does he not just admit it, instead of trying to obfuscate? There can
only be one explanation: he knows that if he admits it then his hatred
of motorists, and his prioritising of that hatred above the safety of
innocent people, will be there for all to see (as if it isn't
already).

So, remind us again where and when Guy expressed the opinion that "drivers
should be prosecuted for making way for emergency vehicles at red lights".

Alternatively, you could tell us about the last ride you did.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
25.806975801127880315188420605149 - the root of all evil.

On 30 Sep, 16:11, Old Scarface wrote:
Guy Chapman thinks (along with others here, no doubt) that drivers who
make way for emergency vehicles by carefully going through red lights
should be prosecuted and convicted. *This shows that not only is he
anti-motorist, but he is prepared for innocent people to die just so
that motorists can be persecuted. *In this case, the innocent people
are those who the emergency services can't get to or take to hospital
because drivers won't go through red lights for fear of prosecution.

Don't believe me? *Ask Chapman yourself. *You won't get much out of
him: this is one of those subjects that he refuses to talk about,
because he doesn't want to admit the truth, nor does he want to lie
(in other words it's another Lhuh Gnii-type thing).

Do you think drivers who make way for emergency vehicles should be
prosecuted *and* not have any legal defence available to them in
court? *If so, it would seem (unless you can show otherwise) that you
are also an anti-motorist monster with blood on your hands. *What is
the point of prosecuting such drivers, and why would you want them to
be prosecuted, unless you were anti-motorist to such an extent that
you were prepared for people to die just so that motorists could be
given a hard time? *What other possible reason would one have for
advocating such prosecutions? *I bet you can't come up with anything.

Anyone who is remotely reasonable, and who doesn't consider
persecuting motorists to be more important than saving innocent
people's lives, must surely be of the opinion that we should not be
prosecuting motorists who carefully make way for emergency vehicles at
red lights. *Unless anyone has any remotely good arguments to the
contrary?

Oh my dog! Its Nuxxy back to his car-hating anti-motorist murderers
theme. And to think he had disappeared for a while. Presumably because
he has *had* to change ISP in the meantime. Oh its a shame ... What
power the car-haters[1] have.

Rudi
[1] In the Nuxx world car-hater and anti-motorist are both synonyms
for cyclist and more generally anyone who does not support the safe-
speed agenda