Another ramming using a car as a weapon but of a car this time.
Doug
her car as a weapon against an ex-partner.
Compare this violent crime with its 32 month sentence, including a
death threat, to 11 years inside for 'conspiracy to blackmail' by an
animal rights activist. But of course cars are not generally
recognised as weapons. Truly justice is blind.
"A woman who deliberately rammed her car into a vehicle her ex-
girlfriend was in before threatening to kill her has been jailed for
32 months.
Swindon Crown Court heard that Holly Salter, of Bradford-upon-Avon,
caused the crash in the town on 5 September.
Salter had been awaiting sentence for causing actual bodily harm over
an attack her ex-girlfriend's new partner.
Salter, 21, was convicted of dangerous driving and making threats to
kill and sentenced for all three offences.
The court heard that Salter's former partner, Louise McGrath, was
travelling in a car driven by a friend when they heard a crash.
Once they realised that a car had rammed them, they attempted to drive
off but were pursued through the town by Salter and rammed on further
occasions..."
"...A few hours later on the same day Ms McGrath received text
messages from Salter, one of which suggested she would be murdered..."
Um! Isn't that a form of blackmail?
More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8355395.stm
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
oldMaxim
...I fail to see the connection between a couple of lesbians pissed
off at each other, and a terrorist organisation.
Doug
> off at each other, and a terrorist organisation.
>
derisory sentence for a crime of violence combined with a death threat
compared to the vicious sentencing for 'conspiracy to blackmail'.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
oldMaxim
>
> - Show quoted text -
...your opinions Doug, looks like justice has been done to me.
Adrian
saying:
> SHAC is not a terrorist organisation
Tell a lie enough times...
Tony Dragon
All of which is OT in a cycling newsgroup.
--
Tony Dragon
PeterG
And Doug believes it.
PeterG
Norman Wells
Let's see what the Times said about the SHAC case, so that people can judge
the sentencing for themselves, shall we?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5384003.ece
"Seven animal rights extremists who subjected scores of victims to a
"climate of fear" have been convicted of co-ordinating a six-year campaign
of blackmail and menaces to shut down Huntingdon Life Sciences.
The three women and four men were found guilty after a two-year, �3.5
million police investigation into Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, an
international campaign to close down the Cambridgeshire-based animal
research laboratory.
Prosecutors believe that among these members of SHAC's hierarchy were some
of the key figures in the Animal Liberation Front, the often violent
movement that acts as an umbrella for much animal rights extremism
worldwide.
Two of SHAC's founding members, Gregg Avery, 41, and his wife Natasha, 39,
along with fellow activist Daniel Amos, 22, pleaded guilty earlier this year
to conspiracy to blackmail.
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Robbins from Kent Police, who led the
investigation, said: "This conspiracy to blackmail involved the systematic
and relentless intimidation of individuals and their companies. The
conspiracy ran for six years, until it was stopped by the arrests.
"The public should be aware that money donated in good faith to Stop
Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) was in fact being used to finance this
criminal conduct."
SHAC's victims received threatening letters, hoax bombs and sanitary towels
allegedly contaminated with the HIV virus, while their neighbours were sent
anonymous letters warning them that they lived close to a paedophile.
The managing director of one targeted company received a letter in December
2006 that threatened: "We will attack your property, your family or you,
whichever we see fit . . . The screams of the animals are in our heads. We
will not fail them. You will pay for their agony."
Nocturnal "home visits" from extremists left cars covered in acid, menacing
messages painted on houses and ALF slogans daubed on nearby roads.
The targets, who worked for companies that did business directly or
indirectly with HLS, were usually targeted after they were listed as
'collaborators' on SHAC's website.
This persecution, often of people who were only loosely connected with
animal research, normally stopped only when a victim's company agreed to
sever its links with the laboratory."
Was all that entirely peaceful and reasonable, Doug?
Why weren't the sentences fully justified?
Doug
it is not.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"Our government is big on allowing people the democratic right to
protest but when you become effective at protesting they clamp down on
you like the worst form of dictatorship."
Heather Nicholson.
BrianW
> On 12 Nov, 07:56, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
>
> > > SHAC is not a terrorist organisation
>
> > Tell a lie enough times...
>
> If it was a designated terrorist organisation it would be banned and
> it is not.
Hey, Doug, I see from today's Times that more of your mates are in
trouble:
"Four people were charged with conspiring to commit criminal damage
against buildings used for animal experiments. Thomas Harris, 26, and
Nicola Tapping, 28, of Gosport, appeared at Portsmouth Magistrates’
Court. They will appear at Winchester Crown Court on November 17.
Maria Neal, 19, and Christopher Potter, 20, from Evesham, will appear
before Portsmouth magistrates on November 18. "
Are *any* of your mates not in prison, Doug?
> UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
> "Our government is big on allowing people the democratic right to
> protest but when you start digging up dead bodies and firebombing people they clamp down on
> you like the worst form of dictatorship."
> Heather Nicholson.
I've corrected Ms Nicholson's quote for you, Doug.
Adrian
saying:
>> > SHAC is not a terrorist organisation
>> Tell a lie enough times...
> If it was a designated terrorist organisation it would be banned and it
> is not.
You. Fucking. Idiot.
http://www.statewatch.org/terrorlists/thelists.html
"The United Kingdom proscribes "international terrorist organisations"
under the Terrorism Act 2000 and organisations in Northern Ireland are
proscribed under previous emergency legislation:"
So - are SHAC "international" or "in Northern Ireland"?
Tony Dragon
It relies on causing terror, end of story.
But do you agree with digging up bodies?
What point is being made in doing so?
Do you agree with fire-bombing?
Do you agree with using threats of violence against people?
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > On 12 Nov, 07:56, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> >> saying:
>
> >>> SHAC is not a terrorist organisation
> >> Tell a lie enough times...
>
> > If it was a designated terrorist organisation it would be banned and
> > it is not.
>
>
>
>
> But do you agree with digging up bodies?
>
>
> What point is being made in doing so?
>
>
> Do you agree with fire-bombing?
>
>
> Do you agree with using threats of violence against people?
>
thread, who only got 32 months? No I think it is despicable. On the
one hand actual killers on roads get trivial sentences while non-
violent animal rights activists get massive sentences. There is
seriously something wrong with the law here in the UK, due no doubt to
the government.
Adrian
saying:
>> It relies on causing terror, end of story.
> So does a tailgater. So what?
You idiot.
>> But do you agree with digging up bodies?
> It happens all the time.
You idiot.
>> What point is being made in doing so?
> It helped to close a cruel farm for laboratory animals.
Cruel farm, eh? So why not just let the RSPCA do their thang, and get an
actual conviction for animal cruelty?
>> Do you agree with fire-bombing?
> Relevance to 'conspiracy to blackmail' sentences?
Evasion of answer noted.
>> Do you agree with using threats of violence against people?
> What like the death-threat motorist rammer, the subject of this thread,
> who only got 32 months? No I think it is despicable.
Assuming that's an answer to the actual question, rather than your
initial attempt to change the subject, the follow-up question has to be
"Why are you spending so much energy on supporting those who do exactly
that, then?"
> On the one hand actual killers on roads get trivial sentences while
> non- violent animal rights activists
Still waiting for an example of those...
> get massive sentences. There is seriously something wrong with the law
> here in the UK, due no doubt to the government.
So you'll be standing for parliament as an independent next time, in an
attempt to change the government from within? No, thought not. That'd
involve you actually standing up to be counted instead of merely whinging
from the sidelines.
Tony Dragon
> On 12 Nov, 10:24, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 12 Nov, 07:56, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>>> saying:
>>>>> SHAC is not a terrorist organisation
>>>> Tell a lie enough times...
>>> If it was a designated terrorist organisation it would be banned and
>>> it is not.
>>
>> It relies on causing terror, end of story.
>>
> So does a tailgater. So what?
A tailgater is not part of an organization, or do you think there is a
great secret society of tailgaters?
>> But do you agree with digging up bodies?
>>
> It happens all the time.
You know when I visited my mothers memorial a few weeks ago, I wondered
what all those holes in the ground were for.
>> What point is being made in doing so?
>>
> It helped to close a cruel farm for laboratory animals.
Ah, the old 'its done in the greater good arguement'
>> Do you agree with fire-bombing?
>>
> Relevance to 'conspiracy to blackmail' sentences?
So no answer then.
>> Do you agree with using threats of violence against people?
>>
> What like the death-threat motorist rammer, the subject of this
> thread, who only got 32 months? No I think it is despicable. On the
> one hand actual killers on roads get trivial sentences while non-
> violent animal rights activists get massive sentences. There is
> seriously something wrong with the law here in the UK, due no doubt to
> the government.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> "Our government is big on allowing people the democratic right to
> protest but when you become effective at protesting they clamp down on
> you like the worst form of dictatorship."
> Heather Nicholson.
So no answers then,
--
Tony Dragon
Mike Ross
wrote:
>Doug wrote:
>> So does a tailgater. So what?
>
>A tailgater is not part of an organization, or do you think there is a
>great secret society of tailgaters?
Shhhhhhh! Don't give us away to him!
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Tony Dragon
My lips are sealed, your secret is safe with me.
I won't even tell him about the monthly meetings in the library at
Laurence House.
--
Tony Dragon
BrianW
> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> It relies on causing terror, end of story.
> > So does a tailgater. So what?
>
> You idiot.
>
> >> But do you agree with digging up bodies?
> > It happens all the time.
>
> You idiot.
Isn't Gollum just great? I can just imagine some other
GollumJustifications e.g.
Do you think X should be punished for slashing someone with a knife?
Gollum - no, surgeons cut people all the time.
Do you think Y should be punished for blowing up a building?
Gollum - no, demolition contractors do it all the time.
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > On 12 Nov, 10:24, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 12 Nov, 07:56, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> >>>> saying:
> >>>>> SHAC is not a terrorist organisation
> >>>> Tell a lie enough times...
> >>> If it was a designated terrorist organisation it would be banned and
> >>> it is not.
>
> >> It relies on causing terror, end of story.
>
> > So does a tailgater. So what?
>
> A tailgater is not part of an organization, or do you think there is a
> great secret society of tailgaters?
>
members of organisations and not by individuals?
>
> >> But do you agree with digging up bodies?
>
> > It happens all the time.
>
> You know when I visited my mothers memorial a few weeks ago, I wondered
> what all those holes in the ground were for.
>
> >> What point is being made in doing so?
>
> > It helped to close a cruel farm for laboratory animals.
>
> Ah, the old 'its done in the greater good arguement'
>
>
> >> Do you agree with fire-bombing?
>
> > Relevance to 'conspiracy to blackmail' sentences?
>
> So no answer then.
>
>
>
> >> Do you agree with using threats of violence against people?
>
> > What like the death-threat motorist rammer, the subject of this
> > thread, who only got 32 months? No I think it is despicable. On the
> > one hand actual killers on roads get trivial sentences while non-
> > violent animal rights activists get massive sentences. There is
> > seriously something wrong with the law here in the UK, due no doubt to
> > the government.
>
>
>
What happened to your reading ability, such as it is?
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust,
and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to
arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in
reality expressing the highest respect for the law." Martin Luther
King, Jr.
Adrian
saying:
>> >>>>> SHAC is not a terrorist organisation
>> >>> If it was a designated terrorist organisation it would be banned
>> >>> and it is not.
>> >> It relies on causing terror, end of story.
>> > So does a tailgater. So what?
>> A tailgater is not part of an organization, or do you think there is a
>> great secret society of tailgaters?
> Are you now trying to claim then that terror can only be caused by
> members of organisations and not by individuals?
I think you'll find that "terrorist organisations" tend to be
organisations...
oldMaxim
> UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
> An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust,
> and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to
> arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in
> reality expressing the highest respect for the law." Martin Luther
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Doug, only someone as misguided as you could find a connection between
SHAC and Martin Luther King - surely some utterance from Saloth Sar
would be more appropriate.
BrianW
> An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust,
> and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to
> arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in
> reality expressing the highest respect for the law." Martin Luther
> King, Jr.
Splendid stuff. Did you note the bit that says "and who willingly
accepts the penalty of imprisonment"? Since when did you and your
mates "willingly accept the penalty of imprisonment"? All we ever hear
is you whining "it's soooooo unfair" like a petulant teenager.
Tony Dragon
Here is a quote from a previous post "If it was a designated terrorist
organisation it would be banned and", do you see words six & seven?
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
guilty of 'conspiracy to blackmail', not firebombing, forms of
violence or any of the other spurious crimes you try to dream up in
your quest to discredit those who actually care about animal welfare,
unlike you and those like you.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Norman Wells
The severity of the conspiracy to blackmail, and hence the sentence handed
down for it, cannot be determined in isolation, but only in the light of all
the surrounding facts. Happily, they're all freely available, as I've set
out above. People will judge for themselves whether the sentence was fair.
Doug
are that the government increasingly wishes to suppress opposition to
animal experimentation and blood sports as it becomes more and more
effective, hence the draconian sentencing compared to other crimes,
many of which involve actual violence and even deaths.
Norman Wells
> On 13 Nov, 17:43, "Norman Wells" <cm...@dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote:
>> The severity of the conspiracy to blackmail, and hence the sentence
>> handed down for it, cannot be determined in isolation, but only in
>> the light of all the surrounding facts. Happily, they're all freely
>> available, as I've set out above. People will judge for themselves
>> whether the sentence was fair.
>>
> Nevertheless blackmail is a non-violent crime.
How's that then, Doug? You won't even say what you mean by violence.
If blackmail is non-violent, then it's clear you don't think any mental
torture is violence. Nor, presumably, on the same basis do you consider
that a person who tries to stab you but misses has been violent. Nor that
arson or throwing bricks through windows is violence.
That is so, isn't it?
> The surrounding facts
> are that the government increasingly wishes to suppress opposition to
> animal experimentation and blood sports as it becomes more and more
> effective, hence the draconian sentencing compared to other crimes,
> many of which involve actual violence and even deaths.
Courts impose sentences, Doug, not the government.
Charles Bryant
Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
}"...A few hours later on the same day Ms McGrath received text
}messages from Salter, one of which suggested she would be murdered..."
}
}Um! Isn't that a form of blackmail?
It's hardly surprising that you give the impression of living on
another planet to most of us, when you don't understand plain English.
Blackmail is a threat to reveal information, not a threat to harm
someone.
Doug
wrote:
> In article <d71f4777-606b-414a-b1e4-caf413dc8...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Wikipedia says:
"English Law creates a much broader definition of blackmail, covering
any unwarranted demands with menaces, whether involving revealing
information or not."
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Adrian
saying:
> Wikipedia says:
Ah, another example of where you're happy to rely on Wikipedia when it
suits you, whilst decrying it when it doesn't.
oldMaxim
cherry picking again eh Doug....
"The Act uses the word "menaces" which is considered wider in scope
than "threat" and involves a warning of any consequences known to be
considered unpleasant by the intended victim. This covers the spectrum
from actual or threatened violence to the victim or others, through
damage to property, to the disclosure of information."
BrianW
<sigh>
Once again, your pitiful powers of comprehension and astonishing lack
of legal knowledge come to the fore. The definition of blackmail you
cite above, which is correct, requires two things:
1. an unwarranted demand
2. menaces.
In other words, it requires the perpetrator to say "Do X or I'll do
Y".
A simple threat to kill, without more, is therefore not blackmail. It
would only have been blackmail if she'd said something like "Give me
�10,000 or I'll kill you".
Doug
Where have I ever decried it?
Doug
> On 16 Nov, 06:49, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 15 Nov, 23:56, Charles Bryant <n117450629...@chch.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:> In article <d71f4777-606b-414a-b1e4-caf413dc8...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
> > > }"...A few hours later on the same day Ms McGrath received text
> > > }messages from Salter, one of which suggested she would be murdered..."
> > > }
> > > }Um! Isn't that a form of blackmail?
>
> > > It's hardly surprising that you give the impression of living on
> > > another planet to most of us, when you don't understand plain English.
> > > Blackmail is a threat to reveal information, not a threat to harm
> > > someone.
>
> > Where is your planet then?
>
> > Wikipedia says:
>
> > "English Law creates a much broader definition of blackmail, covering
> > any unwarranted demands with menaces, whether involving revealing
> > information or not."
>
> > --
> > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
> cherry picking again eh Doug....
>
>
> "The Act uses the word "menaces" which is considered wider in scope
> than "threat" and involves a warning of any consequences known to be
> considered unpleasant by the intended victim. This covers the spectrum
> from actual or threatened violence to the victim or others, through
> damage to property, to the disclosure of information."
>
would be called something else, nor is it damage to property, which
would also be called something else. Don't you think our government
and its so-called justice system would delight in using much more
serious charges, involving violence or damage to property, against
animal rights activists if it could? It would enormously aid the
suppression of non-violent protest against cruel animal
experimentation. Instead we have the vague and widely used catch-all
'conspiracy to blackmail' with its draconian sentencing.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
Adrian
saying:
>> > Wikipedia says:
>> Ah, another example of where you're happy to rely on Wikipedia when it
>> suits you, whilst decrying it when it doesn't.
> Where have I ever decried it?
Umm, in plenty of usenet posts...
I would post MessageIDs, but we all know that you don't understand them,
and refuse to accept that they are "proof".
Adrian
saying:
> Menaces is not 'actual violence'. If it was violence, such blackmail
> would be called something else, nor is it damage to property, which
> would also be called something else.
<cough> I believe the correct phrase is "nit-picking silly semantics"
oldMaxim
>
> - Show quoted text -
...did you bother to read the wiki article (that's where my text came
from) - didn't think you did!
Tony Dragon
Doug would never accept proof that does not agree with his proof. There
must be two sorts of proof.
--
Tony Dragon
BrianW
My favourite was the one where Gollum decried a Wikipedia link he had
introduced himself.
PeterG
Yes, but the first time Wikipedia was good, the second time it was
bad.
There are obviously two sorts of Wikipedia, (ozone, death, losing
control, censorship, anarchy, etc)
PeterG
Doug
oldMaxim
...you're deluded
Tony Dragon
What would be the point of posting message ID's to you?
When a post of yours concerning losing control of a vehicle was quoted
recently you denied it.
--
Tony Dragon
BrianW
As was Gollum's infamous Holocaust Denial post.
Doug
> > On 17 Nov, 07:48, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> >> saying:
>
> >>>>> Wikipedia says:
> >>>> Ah, another example of where you're happy to rely on Wikipedia when it
> >>>> suits you, whilst decrying it when it doesn't.
> >>> Where have I ever decried it?
> >> Umm, in plenty of usenet posts...
>
> >> I would post MessageIDs, but we all know that you don't understand them,
> >> and refuse to accept that they are "proof".
>
> > So you have nothing then, just an empty claim, as usual.
>
>
> When a post of yours concerning losing control of a vehicle was quoted
> recently you denied it.
>
that is beyond your capability, especially if there is nothing to
quote and no ID.
Adrian
saying:
>> What would be the point of posting message ID's to you? When a post of
>> yours concerning losing control of a vehicle was quoted recently you
>> denied it.
> It is usual to include a quote along with a message ID
Why? A MessageID is perfectly sufficient - and you'd deny the quote
anyway.
> but I suppose that is beyond your capability, especially if there is
> nothing to quote and no ID.
Au contraire, mon brave. It's the opposite problem. Far too wide a choice.
Tony Dragon
In fact, in this case the posts were quoted, or have you forgot that as
well?
--
Tony Dragon
BrianW
Right, let's put it to the test.
In the following post (Post A): http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.politics.misc/msg/54cd3a81a5db3065
you said, of a motorist who loses control as a result of someone
dropping a traffic cone from a bridge onto a car "So you were
attacked? How is this relevant to anything? If you had hit and killed
anyone the kid would be to blame, obviously. I hope you are not going
to call this an 'accident'. "
In a later post (Post B) you changed your position:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/ccfb6f0b09981d14?hl=en
You said "A car being hit by a relatively light cone should not cause
loss of control."
You were then reminded of what you had said in Post A, and I provided
you with a link to Post A:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/c63f779c1bb84dc1?hl=en
You went quiet for a while, and then obfuscated (http://
groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/0a6b7b5e6d858d0a?hl=en),
but didn't address the central issue.
In the above post, you reiterated your position in Post B that it
would indeed be the driver's fault if he/she lost control as a result
of being hit by a cone.
OK, I've provided both quotes and messageIDs. For everyone's benefit,
could you let us all know how you reconcile what you said in posts A
and B? In other words, would the driver be to blame if he crashed as a
result of being hit by a traffic cone, or wouldn't he?
Oh, and don't bother posting "Interesting amount of obsessive
researching you have done. How long
did it take you and why do you imagine everyone might benefit from
it?". You did that last time, in a pathetic effort to avoid the
issue.
Over to you, Doug ...
Tony Dragon
Oh please Doug, tell us the answer, don't forget it was me who was
driving the vehicle
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
>
> You said "A car being hit by a relatively light cone should not cause
> loss of control."
>
> You were then reminded of what you had said in Post A, and I provided
> you with a link to Post A:
>
>
> You went quiet for a while, and then obfuscated (http://
> groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/0a6b7b5e6d858d0a?hl=en),
> but didn't address the central issue.
>
> In the above post, you reiterated your position in Post B that it
> would indeed be the driver's fault if he/she lost control as a result
> of being hit by a cone.
>
> OK, I've provided both quotes and messageIDs. For everyone's benefit,
> could you let us all know how you reconcile what you said in posts A
> and B? In other words, would the driver be to blame if he crashed as a
> result of being hit by a traffic cone, or wouldn't he?
>
> Oh, and don't bother posting "Interesting amount of obsessive
> researching you have done. How long
> did it take you and why do you imagine everyone might benefit from
> it?". You did that last time, in a pathetic effort to avoid the
> issue.
>
> Over to you, Doug ...
>
How is this supposed to relate to my views about Wikipedia, which I
have not decried despite the totally unsubstantiated claim that I have
above?
Tony Dragon
So that would be a 'bugger I've been caught out, so I'll ignore it then'
--
Tony Dragon
BrianW
Oh dear, the new GollumPolicy of being honest falls at the first
hurdle. What a surprise ...
BrianW
Incidentally, here's an example of you decrying a Wiki article, on the
grounds "As far as anyone can know, this could have been written/
edited by you or Brimstone, or any other member of the UKT clique and
it is totally unsupported."
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/13fcf59185ce2096?hl=en&dmode=source
Cue DougSilence ...
PeterG
What an excellent example of answering a post & not saying anything
about the post you are answering.
PeterG
Tony Dragon
You do not expect Doug to admit that he was wrong do you?
--
Tony Dragon
BrianW
Indeed. You'd almost think that Mr Bollen was a dishonest old turd,
wouldn't you?
Doug
>
Can't you tell the difference between criticising an article and
criticising Wikipedia? Duh!
Also you conveniently missed out the bit where I magnanimously state:
"It is certainly unsupported in all authoritative Usenet documentation
but I will, for the sake of argument, accept it as Brimstones source,
such as it is."
See! I accepted Wikipedia as a source and didn't decry it. You are
wrong yet again.
You must try even harder with your obsessive researching of my posts
if you ever hope to achieve anything.
BrianW
No, Doug, you have in the past stated that Wikipedia is "peer
reviewed", and therefore a reliable source. However, that is only
when you agree with what is written on Wikipedia. When you don't
agree, as in the case I brought to your attention, you criticise it by
saying "As far as anyone can know, this could have been written/edited
by you or Brimstone ...". Basically, in your world, there is no such
thing as a reliable or unreliable source. There are, instead, sources
with which you agree and sources with which you don't agree.
Then there was the time you posted a Wiki link in support of your
position, and when challenged it turned out you didn't agree with
it ...
Tony Dragon
I fully expect that Doug will be along to comment on it fairly soon.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
Duh!
>
> However, that is only
> when you agree with what is written on Wikipedia. When you don't
> agree, as in the case I brought to your attention, you criticise it by
> saying "As far as anyone can know, this could have been written/edited
> by you or Brimstone ...". Basically, in your world, there is no such
> thing as a reliable or unreliable source. There are, instead, sources
> with which you agree and sources with which you don't agree.
>
It says:
"Do you ever actually read your sources?
It says: "This article does not cite any references or sources.""
>
> Then there was the time you posted a Wiki link in support of your
> position, and when challenged it turned out you didn't agree with
> it ...
>
Really? Source?
BrianW
No, Gollum, it means you do not decry Wikpedia as a source when you
agree with what it says.
> > �However, that is only
> > when you agree with what is written on Wikipedia. �When you don't
> > agree, as in the case I brought to your attention, you criticise it by
> > saying "As far as anyone can know, this could have been written/edited
> > by you or Brimstone ...". �Basically, in your world, there is no such
> > thing as a reliable or unreliable source. �There are, instead, sources
> > with which you agree and sources with which you don't agree.
>
> It is incredible how you can selectively ignore your very own example.
> It says:
>
> "Do you ever actually read your sources?
>
> It says: "This article does not cite any references or sources.""
>
>
>
> > Then there was the time you posted a Wiki link in support of your
> > position, and when challenged it turned out you didn't agree with
> > it ...
>
> Really? Source?
Happy to oblige, Gollum.
When asked a question about anarchy, you posted a link to the
wikipedia
entry, and instructed Brimstone to read it before asking any further
questions. I then quoted from the introduction to the article, and
asked you whether he agreed with it. Your answer? See below link.
Priceless ...
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.transport/msg/2adee1ba35ceb0c1?dmode=source
Nightjar
> Making a change from ramming cyclists, this driver deliberately used
> her car as a weapon against an ex-partner.
>
> Compare this violent crime with its 32 month sentence, including a
> death threat, to 11 years inside for 'conspiracy to blackmail' by an
> animal rights activist. ...
Had the dangerous driving been the only charge, I rather doubt there
would have been any custodial sentence. However, this woman was judged
to be a danger to one particular member of society. Your favourite
criminal has acted in a manner that suggests her to be a danger to
anyone who does not share her distorted world view, The length of the
sentences reflect the difference levels of threat they represent to
society as a whole.
Colin Bignell
Doug
unethical industry which just happens to be supported by government.
Economic considerations are involved. Blackmail in itself is only a
very small threat to individuals, especially when compared to killing
people which draws a much lighter sentence.
The conclusion I draw from this is that the right to life, as
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is considered
by our government as less important than the freedom to conduct an
approved unethical business.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"Our government is big on allowing people the democratic right to
protest but when you become effective at protesting they clamp down on
you like the worst form of dictatorship."
Heather Nicholson.
Tony Dragon
If you tell a lie enough times....
--
Tony Dragon
Nightjar
> On 20 Nov, 18:09, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Making a change from ramming cyclists, this driver deliberately used
>>> her car as a weapon against an ex-partner.
>>> Compare this violent crime with its 32 month sentence, including a
>>> death threat, to 11 years inside for 'conspiracy to blackmail' by an
>>> animal rights activist. ...
>> Had the dangerous driving been the only charge, I rather doubt there
>> would have been any custodial sentence. However, this woman was judged
>> to be a danger to one particular member of society. Your favourite
>> criminal has acted in a manner that suggests her to be a danger to
>> anyone who does not share her distorted world view, The length of the
>> sentences reflect the difference levels of threat they represent to
>> society as a whole.
>>
> I think you have it. Animal rights activism is a threat to an
> unethical industry which just happens to be supported by government.
That's not what I said or implied. The woman consscerned was a threat to
other people. Nothing more.
Colin Bignell
Doug
car.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Norman Wells
That's very debatable. You see, the woman you refer to wasn't ramming
cyclists in general but only one, namely her ex-partner, against whom she
presumably had some kind of grievance. It was a crime of passion, not some
dedicated campaign, and it's very unlikely, that she would be any danger to
anyone else.
On the other hand, the thug you seek to defend was involved in loathsome
acts over several years directed at the totally innocent going about their
perfectly legitimate business. She is completely unrepentant and
unremorseful, and would undoubtedly do just the same again if she were free.
For those unfamilar with the case, it's well documented what she did. See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5384003.ece
Nightjar
Not at all. Your pet criminal is a threat to anyone who disagreees with
her, which is probably most of Britain. The average motorist won't kill
anyone in their entire driving career.
Colin Bignell
Roger Hunt
the over-population problem would diminish markedly.
--
Roger Hunt
d...@telent.net
> Perhaps we should all try harder - if every motorist killed a pedestrian
> the over-population problem would diminish markedly.
Only trouble with that is, the UK doesn't have an over-population
problem. There are 60 million acres of land in the UK - that's one
for each of us, or several for each existing household
-dan
Roger Hunt
that inhabit this blighted nation. Factor them in and the picture
changes.
--
Roger Hunt
Doug
>
> The average motorist won't kill
> anyone in their entire driving career.
>
lot and that doesn't even include the thousands who are seriously
injured by motorists. And yet, when motorists are compared to non-
violent animal rights activists few motorists are as seriously
punished for killing and injuring. Maybe because the former are acting
politically and the latter are not and life is cheap in the UK.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
Norman Wells
> On 23 Nov, 17:50, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> Not at all. Your pet criminal is a threat to anyone who disagreees
>> with her, which is probably most of Britain.
>>
> But not a physical threat, unlike many motorists.
It depend, though, on which of the following you regard as a 'physical
threat':
death threats
mail bombs
bricks through windows
intimidation
arson
paint stripper on cars
poisoning food on supermarket shelves
blackmail, and
digging up dead grannies,
all of which are well-documented as being the noxious habits of those you
support, and many of which are the stock-in-trade of your pet criminal.
Which of those do you regard as a 'physical threat', Doug, and which not?
Perhaps at long last you'll say.
Nightjar
Violence was a specific threat made as part of the blackmail. There is
no reason to believe that the threats would not have been carried out.
...
> But with more than 25 million motorists it only takes a few to kill a
> lot and that doesn't even include the thousands who are seriously
> injured by motorists. And yet, when motorists are compared to non-
> violent animal rights activists
History suggests there is no such thing.
> few motorists are as seriously
> punished for killing and injuring. Maybe because the former are acting
> politically and the latter are not and life is cheap in the UK.
More probably it is because the motorists generally do not intentionally
set out to kill or injure people, while the animal rights 'activists' do
intend the harm they cause.
Colin Bignell
Doug
as violence itself even though no violence has taken place?
>
>
> > But with more than 25 million motorists it only takes a few to kill a
> > lot and that doesn't even include the thousands who are seriously
> > injured by motorists. And yet, when motorists are compared to non-
> > violent animal rights activists
>
> History suggests there is no such thing.
>
>
> > few motorists are as seriously
> > punished for killing and injuring. Maybe because the former are acting
> > politically and the latter are not and life is cheap in the UK.
>
> More probably it is because the motorists generally do not intentionally
> set out to kill or injure people, while the animal rights 'activists' do
> intend the harm they cause.
>
unintentionally? What about acting carelessly or dangerously? On the
other hand the 'harm' ARAs 'intend' do not kill people and yet they
receive longer sentences than killer motorists.
Nightjar
No. I would have expected her to get a longer sentence had there been
actual violence. However, taking into acount the activities of the
previous six years, I do not consider it unreasonable that threats of
violence be taken seriously when considering what danger this person
represents to the public.
>>
>>> But with more than 25 million motorists it only takes a few to kill a
>>> lot and that doesn't even include the thousands who are seriously
>>> injured by motorists. And yet, when motorists are compared to non-
>>> violent animal rights activists
>> History suggests there is no such thing.
>>
> I am suggesting it.
Then you aare wrong. There may well be non-violent protestors, but
terrorist tactics are the stock in trade of those who call themselves
activists.
>>> few motorists are as seriously
>>> punished for killing and injuring. Maybe because the former are acting
>>> politically and the latter are not and life is cheap in the UK.
>> More probably it is because the motorists generally do not intentionally
>> set out to kill or injure people, while the animal rights 'activists' do
>> intend the harm they cause.
>>
> So its OK for a drunken driver to kill people because he is acting
> unintentionally? What about acting carelessly or dangerously?
I all cases, they will be tried and sentenced according to the crimes
committed, not to exact revenge for the consequences of those crimes.
> On the
> other hand the 'harm' ARAs 'intend' do not kill people and yet they
> receive longer sentences than killer motorists.
Again, they are tried and sentenced according to the crimes they commit,
not according to the consequences of those crimes, although they still
devastate lives by their actions.
Colin Bignell
BrianW
> >>> But with more than 25 million motorists it only takes a few to kill a
> >>> lot and that doesn't even include the thousands who are seriously
> >>> injured by motorists. And yet, when motorists are compared to non-
> >>> violent animal rights activists
> >> History suggests there is no such thing.
>
> > I am suggesting it.
>
> Then you aare wrong. There may well be non-violent protestors, but
> terrorist tactics are the stock in trade of those who call themselves
> activists.
Reminds me of an old joke. Doug Bollen, in his motorised scooter,
challenges a non-violent animal rights activist (in a Formula 1 car)
and Santa Claus (on his sleigh) to a race. Who wins?
Answer: Doug Bollen - the other two are imaginary.
Nightjar
NOOOOOO! Tell me that's not true.
Surely Doug's programmed responses come from a Turing Test machine.
Colin Bignell
BrianW
I must say that the thought has occurred to me ...
Adrian
they were saying:
>> Surely Doug's programmed responses come from a Turing Test machine.
> I must say that the thought has occurred to me ...
Not a very good one. It's just too predictable to be anything but a very
shoddy attempt at artificial intelligence. It must be natural stupidity.
BrianW
> BrianW <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
Be fair now. When the BollenBot first appeared back in the mid 1990s,
it was probably a state of the art attempt at artificial
intelligence. It just hasn't been updated, that's all.
Adrian
they were saying:
>> >> Surely Doug's programmed responses come from a Turing Test machine.
>> > I must say that the thought has occurred to me ...
>> Not a very good one. It's just too predictable to be anything but a
>> very shoddy attempt at artificial intelligence. It must be natural
>> stupidity.
> Be fair now. When the BollenBot first appeared back in the mid 1990s,
> it was probably a state of the art attempt at artificial intelligence.
It would have been a lousy attempt in the '70s.
BrianW
> BrianW <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
I'm sorry. I meant to write "When the BollenBot first appeared back
in the mid 1990s, it was probably a state of the art attempt at
artificial stupidity". And, in fact, I expect it is still way better
at being really, really stupid than any computer program could manage.
Nightjar
That was the period of Eliza, which only took what you said and turned
it into questions that sounded as though they ought to have some
meaning, but didn't. On reflection, I see what you mean.
Colin Bignell
BrianW
> Adrian wrote:
> > BrianW <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
Gollum may be repetitive and inane most of the time, but I defy anyone
to develop a computer program that could come up with "two types of
ozone". Or "two types of dead". Or, for that matter, "Miles Cooper
was a motorist terrorist".