> TomTom wrote:
>>> TomTom wrote:
>>>>> TomTom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Alpha_77DX"
microsloth.con> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:gaj3u0$fuh$1@aioe.org...>>>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why should it matter what problem the phone may or may not
>>>>>>> cause? If it's against the rules it's bloody well against the
>>>>>>> rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. The question being discussed is whether it is against
>>>>>> the rules. Not the rules in someone's head, but the written
>>>>>> rules, the L-A-W- law. There is some concern that it might not
>>>>>> be actually against the law, We shall see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not always. Sometimes the written l-a-w depends on the reasonable
>>>>> person in your head
>>>>
>>>> Example?
>>>
>>> Use of reasonable force in defending your home?
>>
>> You will find that what you think is reasonable is of no
>> significance - it's about what the police and the DPP think, and
>> then what a judge and jury think.
>
> When I am in that situation then what the I think is the significance
> as I will not have the DPP, Judge or Jury with me to assist with
> making the right choices.
I might agree, if you could articulate whatever you wanted to say.
> Anyhow, you asked for an example, not necessarily a relevant one.
I aked for an example, to give empirical content to your claim that
"Sometimes the written l-a-w depends on the reasonable person in your head".
You did give an example, and I told you that you were up a gum tree.
> Make it relevant.
I can't - no-one can. It's not relevant.
> What if a rogue pilot takes over the plane. Would not a
> reasonable person attempt to make contact with people outside the
> plane? Would that person be arrested for endangering to plane?
> Clearly not.
Another poor example. Since 9/11, it is now clear that passengers in a
high-jacked plane have only three choices about how they will die. They can
be shot down, which is the least desirable, because the passengers are then
only chickens waiting to be slaughtered. They can do nothing, and allow the
high-jackers to crash the plane for terrorist purposes, which is not good,
and makes the passengers accomplices by inertia. They can act to ensure
that the high-jackers' plans go wrong. That still means they all die, but
it makes an excellent point to wanna-be high-jackers.
It's a poor example, because everyone on the plane is dead.
> Mobile phones use UHF frequencies and do *not* interfere with aircraft
> navigation systems. The issue is that whilst the interference is
> infinitesmally small it cannot be entirely dismissed - so the rule
> remains. In practice it is ridiculous.
If this is so, it calls for massive civil disobedience in protest. We are
being lied to by governments and airlines. How shocking!
