From: "Nightjar "cpb" on
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
"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
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


"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
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.