Doug wrote:
> On 4 Sep, 09:21, "Mike P"
privacy.net> wrote:>> Doug wrote:
>>> The combination of harassment, i.e. intimidation, and actual
>>> physical violence would undoubtedly be regarded by police as
>>> terrorism in any group other than our over-privileged motorists.
>>> People have been imprisoned for less.
>>
>>> "Millionaire tycoon guilty of harassment after throwing rocks at
>>> Mercedes in his love rival's drive.
>>
>>> A milionaire property developer has admitted throwing rocks at the
>>> home of a lawyer who had started dating his former lover.
>>
>>> Wayne Mellor, 52, turned up at the house at 4am and began throwing
>>> stones at two Mercedes-Benz cars that were parked in the
>>> driveway..."
>>
>> What the hell has this got to do with transport Doug? Please answer,
>> I'm looking forward to your reply.
>>
> I take it you weren't around when the motorists who dominate this
> transport newsgroup went off topic and started slagging of animal
> rights and other peaceful protesters,
Please point me in the direction of some "peaceful" animal rights
protesters. I've not come across any yet....
>while accused them of terrorism.
> I pointed out at the time that if there was a level playing field in
> law similar terrorist legislation could be applied to motorists. For
> example, animal rights activists are imprisoned for sending
> intimidatory letters to people.
Yes, I know. I used to work for a company where we got problems from them.
>Likewise, tailgaters are also guilty
> of intimidation, while upholding their right to drive at speed
> regardless of the risk they are posing to their victims and so should
> be imprisoned similarly.
Er no, it's illegal, and if they get spotted, they get nicked and fined. You
won't find anyone on this ng condoning it. However, threatening to kill
someone/dig up their dead relatives is not similar at all. Especially as
it's actually happened in the past, and both are reasonably serious crimes.
>Or, better still, ARAs should not be
> imprisoned at all for their similar but much less dangerous offence.
Heh, we agree on something. I don't think they should be imprisoned either.
I say birch the bastards.
> Of course it doesn't end there. The use of a car as an unintentional
> lethal weapon is treated much more leniently than accidental killing
> with other sorts of weapons, such as guns and knives.
Yes, it's because they are accidents Duhg. Just as falling down the stairs
is an accident. I think you'll find more people are seriously injured by
their bedlinen each year in the US than by knives or guns. That is a fact. I
will even find you the source when I get home.
>It is as though
> motorists are somehow privileged and are allowed to commit serious
> crimes with relative impunity.
Erm no? I went over the speed limit on a motorway. I lost my licence for 6
months. Were I to kill someone doing it, I'd expect to be locked away at
HM's pleasure for a while.
> Do you see the connection with transport now?
Some prick throwing stones at a Merc is *not* transport related in the
slighest, so no, I don't see the connection at all.
> Incidentally, your
> motorists chums often start threads which have nothing whatsoever to
> do with transport which may make you something of a hypocrite for
> accusing me of the same.
No. In fact, I'm using OE as a newsreader here, with the reading pane at the
bottom, in 1200*1024 resolution. If I turn the preview pane off so I can see
weeks of posts, the only non-transport related items I can see come from
you! Well, apart from Brian who is obviously obsessed with you ;-)
Mike P
