>>> 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..."
> 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, 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. 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. Or, better still, ARAs should not be
> imprisoned at all for their similar but much less dangerous offence.
>
> 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. It is as though
> motorists are somehow privileged and are allowed to commit serious
> crimes with relative impunity.
>
> Do you see the connection with transport now? 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.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
>
www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
