From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 26 Feb 2010 12:10 Adrian wrote: > Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: > >>>>>>>> Yes its easier to just kill pedestrians than to interfere with >>>>>>>> motoring. > >>>>>>> Oh look, a bit more bollox posted by Doug at the end. > >>>>>> Anyone's risk of dying as a pedestrian or cyclist as a result of a >>>>>> road accident that is the fault of the driver or his vehicle is just >>>>>> 1 in 4000 lifetimes, or once in approximately 320,000 years. > >>>>> You're forgetting one important detail, though. >>>>> >>>>> 100% of people injured in road crashes die later. EVERY SINGLE ONE of >>>>> them. >>>>> >>>>> Something. Must. Be. Done. > >>>> Yes, especially as, EVEN witnesses suffer the same fate! > >>> <slaps forehead> >>> Migod! You're right! >>> >>> It's worse than we thought! > >> Up to a point, Lord Copper. >> At least the perpetrator is subject to the same fate. > > Hmm. Surely even Duhg would not regard the death penalty as too lenient a > fate for Motorists Who Kill? I think he would favour hanged, drawn and quartered. Colin Bignell
From: Adrian on 26 Feb 2010 12:11 "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>>> You're forgetting one important detail, though. >>>>>> >>>>>> 100% of people injured in road crashes die later. EVERY SINGLE ONE >>>>>> of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Something. Must. Be. Done. >>>>> Yes, especially as, EVEN witnesses suffer the same fate! >>>> <slaps forehead> >>>> Migod! You're right! >>>> >>>> It's worse than we thought! >>> Up to a point, Lord Copper. >>> At least the perpetrator is subject to the same fate. >> Hmm. Surely even Duhg would not regard the death penalty as too lenient >> a fate for Motorists Who Kill? > I think he would favour hanged, drawn and quartered. Nah, too quick.
From: Doug on 27 Feb 2010 04:33 On 26 Feb, 12:14, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: > > > > >>>>>>> Yes its easier to just kill pedestrians than to interfere with > >>>>>>> motoring. > >>>>>> Oh look, a bit more bollox posted by Doug at the end. > >>>>> Anyone's risk of dying as a pedestrian or cyclist as a result of a > >>>>> road accident that is the fault of the driver or his vehicle is just > >>>>> 1 in 4000 lifetimes, or once in approximately 320,000 years. > >>>> You're forgetting one important detail, though. > > >>>> 100% of people injured in road crashes die later. EVERY SINGLE ONE of > >>>> them. > > >>>> Something. Must. Be. Done. > >>> Yes, especially as, EVEN witnesses suffer the same fate! > >><slaps forehead> > >>Migod! You're right! > > >>It's worse than we thought! > > Up to a point, Lord Copper. > > At least the perpetrator is subject to the same fate. > > Hmm. Surely even Duhg would not regard the death penalty as too lenient a > fate for Motorists Who Kill? > No a charge of manslaughter and a jury where motorists are not in a majority would suffice, with penalties similar to non-road killings. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Brimstone on 27 Feb 2010 04:51 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:694ed41e-e7a7-4fc5-a6ff-08ba46ba25f5(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On 26 Feb, 12:14, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> gurgled happily, sounding >> much like they were saying: >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Yes its easier to just kill pedestrians than to interfere with >> >>>>>>> motoring. >> >>>>>> Oh look, a bit more bollox posted by Doug at the end. >> >>>>> Anyone's risk of dying as a pedestrian or cyclist as a result of a >> >>>>> road accident that is the fault of the driver or his vehicle is >> >>>>> just >> >>>>> 1 in 4000 lifetimes, or once in approximately 320,000 years. >> >>>> You're forgetting one important detail, though. >> >> >>>> 100% of people injured in road crashes die later. EVERY SINGLE ONE >> >>>> of >> >>>> them. >> >> >>>> Something. Must. Be. Done. >> >>> Yes, especially as, EVEN witnesses suffer the same fate! >> >><slaps forehead> >> >>Migod! You're right! >> >> >>It's worse than we thought! >> > Up to a point, Lord Copper. >> > At least the perpetrator is subject to the same fate. >> >> Hmm. Surely even Duhg would not regard the death penalty as too lenient a >> fate for Motorists Who Kill? >> > No a charge of manslaughter and a jury where motorists are not in a > majority would suffice, > But if you had a jury which did not have a majority of motorists then it would not be representative of the adult population as a whole would it Doug? Even you are a motorist. > with penalties similar to non-road killings. Why would you want to reduce the maximum possible sentence?
From: Doug on 27 Feb 2010 05:00
On 27 Feb, 09:51, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > news:694ed41e-e7a7-4fc5-a6ff-08ba46ba25f5(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > On 26 Feb, 12:14, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> gurgled happily, sounding > >> much like they were saying: > > >> >>>>>>> Yes its easier to just kill pedestrians than to interfere with > >> >>>>>>> motoring. > >> >>>>>> Oh look, a bit more bollox posted by Doug at the end. > >> >>>>> Anyone's risk of dying as a pedestrian or cyclist as a result of a > >> >>>>> road accident that is the fault of the driver or his vehicle is > >> >>>>> just > >> >>>>> 1 in 4000 lifetimes, or once in approximately 320,000 years. > >> >>>> You're forgetting one important detail, though. > > >> >>>> 100% of people injured in road crashes die later. EVERY SINGLE ONE > >> >>>> of > >> >>>> them. > > >> >>>> Something. Must. Be. Done. > >> >>> Yes, especially as, EVEN witnesses suffer the same fate! > >> >><slaps forehead> > >> >>Migod! You're right! > > >> >>It's worse than we thought! > >> > Up to a point, Lord Copper. > >> > At least the perpetrator is subject to the same fate. > > >> Hmm. Surely even Duhg would not regard the death penalty as too lenient a > >> fate for Motorists Who Kill? > > > No a charge of manslaughter and a jury where motorists are not in a > > majority would suffice, > > But if you had a jury which did not have a majority of motorists then it > would not be representative of the adult population as a whole would it > Doug? > Juries are usually vetted for bias but not with road crash cases and its motorist majority. Imagine if a child abuse case was tried by a jury with a paedophile majority! > > Even you are a motorist. > Not any longer, thankfully. > > > with penalties similar to non-road killings. > > Why would you want to reduce the maximum possible sentence? > I don't. Manslaughter carries a longer maximum sentence than the softer death from dangerous driving. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |