Banks' car hit by bollards
MB_UK
travelling in was impaled on rising bollards in Cambridge city centre.
And the chauffeur driving the former international goalie to a
book-signing now says he will sue Cambridgeshire County Council for
writing off his Mercedes.
Andrew Kephalas was driving Mr Banks to Heffers in the Grafton Centre
where he was due to sign copies of his autobiography, Banksy.
But as the Mercedes swept into Emmanuel Road at 12.30pm on Wednesday,
their journey was suddenly and violently cut short.
Mr Kephalas said: "I was using maps and my satellite navigation system
which took me straight in. We were in Emmanuel Road and I actually
said to him 'we are here; there it is over there' and as I said it
there was a big smash."
A bollard pushed the Mercedes' engine up through the bonnet, spilling
hot oil across the road. He said: "My passengers were badly shaken, Mr
Banks bumped his head.
"The bollards are there to stop people driving in but they shouldn't
come up and destroy people's cars."
Mr Kephalas insisted he had not crashed into the bollards and said
they had risen under his car but the council flatly denied this was
possible.
A spokesman said CCTV footage showed the bollards start to descend as
they sensed the Mercedes' approach and that Mr Kephalas had crashed
into them.
The council had never had to pay damages as a result of the bollards,
he said, and would be billing Mr Kephalas for the damage caused.
Mr Banks went on to the book signing and a Cambridge City Football
Club dinner at Queens' College.
Gordon Banks was once considered the best goalkeeper in the world and
pulled off what many believe was the best save ever, blocking a Pele
header in the 1970 World Cup game against Brazil. His career was ended
in 1974 after he lost the sight in one eye after a car crash.
This was the latest in a number of crashes at the Emmanuel Road
bollards since they were installed in the summer of 1999.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/news.asp?sec=1&id=252036
Comments
I couldnt work out whether the car was authorised to use that road or
not?
The article refers to the bollards starting to descend as the car
approached, which would suggest that either the car approached the
bollards too quickly or the bollards themselves malfunctioned.
Not much sympathy if the car wasn't authorised to use that road. There
are great big warning signs aren't there?
Ashley Stevens
> This was the latest in a number of crashes at the Emmanuel Road
> bollards since they were installed in the summer of 1999.
Something must be done about this terrible accident blackspot. There
could have been children in that car. Just think of the children...
the childen....
Olly Johnson
> ENGLAND football hero Gordon Banks escaped injury when the car he was
> travelling in was impaled on rising bollards in Cambridge city centre.
>
> Gordon Banks was once considered the best goalkeeper in the world and
> pulled off what many believe was the best save ever, blocking a Pele
> header in the 1970 World Cup game against Brazil. His career was ended
> in 1974 after he lost the sight in one eye after a car crash.
Looks like noone will be asking him to do any map-reading again, either.
Mind you, after Tuesday night's performance, I'm surprised the Us aren't
trying to sign him as cover for Marshall.
O.
--
otj...@cam.ac.uk http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~johnson 01223 337946
Christ's College and Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge
Mike Clark
On the other hand the bollards are about the size of a small child!
Mike <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Paul Oldham
topca...@aol.com (MB_UK) growled:
> Not much sympathy if the car wasn't authorised to use that road. There
> are great big warning signs aren't there?
But he was too busy looking at his satnav ...
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ maintainer ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
"Careful how you handle scissors and fools."
Patrick Gosling
Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote:
>In article <81c11ce8.02100...@posting.google.com>,
>topca...@aol.com (MB_UK) growled:
>
>> Not much sympathy if the car wasn't authorised to use that road. There
>> are great big warning signs aren't there?
>
>But he was too busy looking at his satnav ...
Which makes it at least a "careless driving" ...
-patrick.
Robert Macmillan
"MB_UK" <topca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:81c11ce8.02100...@posting.google.com...
> ENGLAND football hero Gordon Banks escaped injury when the car he was
> travelling in was impaled on rising bollards in Cambridge city centre.
> A bollard pushed the Mercedes' engine up through the bonnet, spilling
> hot oil across the road.
> A spokesman said CCTV footage showed the bollards start to descend as
> they sensed the Mercedes' approach and that Mr Kephalas had crashed
> into them.
Inspection of the car should determine which of these is right, surely?
Anyway, why didn't Banksie dive down to his right and flip the car over
the bollard, just in time?
Robert
Ian Cowley
> And the chauffeur driving the former international goalie to a
> book-signing now says he will sue Cambridgeshire County Council for
> writing off his Mercedes.
> Mr Kephalas said: "I was using maps and my satellite navigation system
> which took me straight in. We were in Emmanuel Road and I actually
Perhaps he should be suing the sat nav makers for not having the road as a
closed road on their system?
--
Ian Cowley (Not Reverend)
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Paul Bolchover
Presumably it's in their small print that they don't guarrentee that any
roads actually exist, are not one-way, and can be drive on.
Paul
Paul Oldham
growled:
ISTR a report somewhere (comp.risks?) of a german couple who drove around
the corner ... straight into the river. Because the GPS mapping system
indicated they could cross there, but didn't make it clear enough that the
crossing wasn't a bridge but the ferry which was on the other bank at the
time. Probably a Dead Granny but certainly one could imagine it happening.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ maintainer ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
"Duct tape is like the force; it has a light side and a dark side"
Ian Cowley
news:ank2cu$p2v$1...@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk...
One would hope so, if idiots who drive into stuff are going to threaten to
sue for it.
Hocus Pocus
> In article <81c11ce8.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> topca...@aol.com (MB_UK) growled:
>
>> Not much sympathy if the car wasn't authorised to use that road.
>> There are great big warning signs aren't there?
>
> But he was too busy looking at his satnav ...
Sue the council for willful destruction of property.
Ian Cowley
news:fwgn9.339$7w5.55518@newsfep2-gui...
But he wilfully destroyed his own property by driving into the bollard.
It's not as if the council came along to his parked car and threw a bollard
at it.
Alan Braggins
> > Perhaps he should be suing the sat nav makers for not having the road as a
> > closed road on their system?
>
> ISTR a report somewhere (comp.risks?) of a german couple who drove around
> the corner ... straight into the river. Because the GPS mapping system
> indicated they could cross there, but didn't make it clear enough that the
> crossing wasn't a bridge but the ferry which was on the other bank at the
> time. Probably a Dead Granny but certainly one could imagine it happening.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.14.html#subj1 gives enough detail to
Google for other reports. Fairly widely reported at the time, IIRC.
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
topca...@aol.com (MB_UK) writes:
> ENGLAND football hero Gordon Banks escaped injury when the car he was
> travelling in was impaled on rising bollards in Cambridge city centre.
> Mr Kephalas said: "I was using maps and my satellite navigation system
> which took me straight in. We were in Emmanuel Road and I actually
> said to him 'we are here; there it is over there' and as I said it
> there was a big smash."
> "The bollards are there to stop people driving in but they shouldn't
> come up and destroy people's cars."
Ah, so he realised that he shouldn't have driven there. Good.
> I couldnt work out whether the car was authorised to use that road or
> not?
Not - sounds like a private hire *not* a taxi.
> Not much sympathy if the car wasn't authorised to use that road. There
> are great big warning signs aren't there?
Yes, lots.
No sympathy at all.
- Huge
BW
"Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote in message
news:m3smzmt...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk...
There might be signs but the photo in the CEN today shows the one that
actually says Rising Bollards at ground level which seems an odd place to
put it.
Paul Oldham
ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) growled:
Ah, well done, I did try a quick Google, but obviously not with the right
words.
Martin Evans
> There might be signs but the photo in the CEN today shows the one that
> actually says Rising Bollards at ground level which seems an odd place to
> put it.
So that the children can see it!
Matthew Vernon
<snip>
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/news.asp?sec=1&id=252036
I do wonder why the CEN doesn't report these as "another twit drives
into the rising bollards"; they always seem to be pro-driver in these
cases.
Matthew
--
* Emperor reads cam.misc
* antinomy/#chiark puts some clothes on
<Emperor> that's our lives in a nutshell, isn't it?
Jonathan Amery
Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>topca...@aol.com (MB_UK) writes:
>> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/news.asp?sec=1&id=252036
>I do wonder why the CEN doesn't report these as "another twit drives
>into the rising bollards"; they always seem to be pro-driver in these
>cases.
CEN are fundamentally pro-driver.
--
Jonathan Amery. There in the garden of tears
##### My heavy load he chose to bear;
#######__o His heart with sorrow was torn,
#######'/ 'Yet not my will but yours,' he said. - Graham Kendrick
Paul Oldham
Vernon) growled:
> topca...@aol.com (MB_UK) writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> > http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/news.asp?sec=1&id=252036
>
> I do wonder why the CEN doesn't report these as "another twit drives
> into the rising bollards"; they always seem to be pro-driver in these
> cases.
That's because CEN are pro-driver. Always have been. See also the speed
cameras survey and their reaction to results.
Remember that they're the ones who ran a campaign for "improvements to the
A14" which was magically turned into "widening the A14" after everyone had
signed up to "improvements". Now I'm in favour of improvements: better
designed junctions especially, not to mention measures to encourage people
to use other transport options, but I don't see much point in widening it
without doing that sort of thing first so I would be well pissed off if I'd
been rash enough to support CEN's campaign.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ maintainer ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
"I hope I didn't brain my damage"
Meldrew of Meldreth
<topca...@aol.com> writes
>A spokesman said CCTV footage showed the bollards start to descend as
>they sensed the Mercedes' approach and that Mr Kephalas had crashed
>into them.
This seems to suggest that he had a transponder, but didn't wait for the
bollard to descend. But the rest of the story is much more like the
classic ""follow through" plus bollard under the bonnet.
But both can't be true.
--
Meldrew of Meldreth - Beware imitations
The Original Meldrew Man - posting since November 2000
philj
> into the rising bollards"; they always seem to be pro-driver in these
> cases.
Absolutely; I laughed out loud when I saw the headline. I seem to remember
that they also ran a campaign against tow-away... presumably these people
think that the little yellow lines and signs apply only to those of us
stupid enough to follow them. Quite why the local rag sees things from that
perspective I don't know...
Phil
philj
> speed cameras survey and their reaction to results.
;-) ahem, Pro-bad-driver, IMHO.
I would suggest that it may be run by someone who speeds, parks illegally
and rams bollards whilst using a mobile 'phone in one hand and smoking with
the other, but that might be libellous so I won't.
Phil
Robert Macmillan
"philj" <ph...@bt.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ankdn6$nnf$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
It's quite possible to be in favour of upholding the law and against these
two policies on the basis that the penalty is gross for the crime. Imagine
the outcry if bikes were confiscated when cyclists were caught cycling the
wrong way down the street.
Robert
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
> Remember that they're the ones who ran a campaign for "improvements to the
> A14" which was magically turned into "widening the A14" after everyone had
> signed up to "improvements". Now I'm in favour of improvements: better
> designed junctions especially,
Absolutely...
> not to mention measures to encourage people to use other transport
Uh, how would that be "improvements to the A14"? It might be "improvements
to other forms of transport" and it might be "making the A14 worse"[1]
(eg. close the Histon and Milton interchanges).
Somehow causing less traffic to use it (and changing nothing else) would
improve the experience for those who *do* use it, but that would not be an
improvement to the A14 *itself*, surely?
> options, but I don't see much point in widening it without doing that
> sort of thing first so I would be well pissed off if I'd been rash enough
> to support CEN's campaign.
If I had signed a petition literally for "improvements to the A14" I would
think it outrageous if that were waved as backing for the misguided bus or
light rail or bus lanes or more park and ride or in fact anything other
than more road space for private transport along the A14 route.
I don't see how "improvements to the A14" can mean anything but more
provision for private motorized transport, since the A14 is a road.
If I had signed a petition literally to "improve transport along the A14
corridor" a la CHUMMS, then your interpretations are totally reasonable.
But I think the implication that CEN was underhand *if* they said literally
what you reported above, is unfounded.
- Huge
[1]Can't think of an antonym for improvements. Anyone?
Oh yeah, "traffic calming" ;-(
Patrick Gosling
Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
>It's quite possible to be in favour of upholding the law and against these
>two policies on the basis that the penalty is gross for the crime. Imagine
>the outcry if bikes were confiscated when cyclists were caught cycling the
>wrong way down the street.
Acksherly, a number of people, myself included, were openly wondering if
this could be arranged in this very newsgroup (or possibly cam.transport)
not that long ago.
-patrick.
Patrick Gosling
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote:
>I don't see how "improvements to the A14" can mean anything but more
>provision for private motorized transport, since the A14 is a road.
<half-troll>
There are some things that could be enormously improved by being got
rid of ...
</half-troll>
-patrick.
Steve Slatcher
> In message <81c11ce8.02100...@posting.google.com>, MB_UK
> <topca...@aol.com> writes
>> A spokesman said CCTV footage showed the bollards start to descend as
>> they sensed the Mercedes' approach and that Mr Kephalas had crashed
>> into them.
>
> This seems to suggest that he had a transponder, but didn't wait for
> the bollard to descend. But the rest of the story is much more like
> the classic ""follow through" plus bollard under the bonnet.
>
> But both can't be true.
Why not? Car crashes into descending bollard. Car continues forward a
bit, either to continue journey or because bollard has just grazed
underside of car front. Bollard rises.
Robert Macmillan
"Patrick Gosling" <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:anked9$lm6$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Indeed. And cyclists uniformly found it outrageous.
Robert
Jonathan Amery
It'd make Trinity Street much better...
--
Jonathan Amery. Love is the light in the tunnel of pain;
##### Love is the will to be whole once again;
#######__o Love is the trust of a friend on the road:
#######'/ God is where love is, for love is of God. - John Bell
Jonathan Amery
Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
>Indeed. And cyclists uniformly found it outrageous.
Can I note that both Patrick and myself are cyclists, and neither of
us found it outrageous.
--
Jonathan Amery. I thought that I heard you laughing.
##### I thought that I heard you sing.
#######__o I think I thought I saw you try.
#######'/ - REM, Losing my religion
John
>"The bollards are there to stop people driving in
They worked then.
Mike Clark
Provided that they were only impounded until a fair fine was paid I
wouldn't strongly object. The problem comes if confiscation meant permanent
deprivation of the bike, and without legal rights of objection and
representation.
Given that fixed penalty fines for most driving offences are considerably
less than the purchase cost of a new bike I think it would be
disproportionate to permanently confiscate a bike for the offence above.
Mike <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Patrick Gosling
Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
>Indeed. And cyclists uniformly found it outrageous.
To the best of my recollection, I'm a counterexample to that assertion,
and I believe there were quite a few others. I'd better google to check
if my memory is messing me around, though, I guess.
-patrick.
philj
>
> To the best of my recollection, I'm a counterexample to that
> assertion, and I believe there were quite a few others.
I'm another
Tim Ward
news:ant0417126d2Pk=+...@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <anke39$oi9$1...@venus.btinternet.com>, Robert Macmillan
> <URL:mailto:rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > It's quite possible to be in favour of upholding the law and against
> > these two policies on the basis that the penalty is gross for the crime.
> > Imagine the outcry if bikes were confiscated when cyclists were caught
> > cycling the wrong way down the street.
>
> Provided that they were only impounded until a fair fine was paid I
> wouldn't strongly object.
Plus payment of compensation to the victim.
I was hit by a cyclist cycling the wrong way down a one way street and
veering from side to side last Saturday. I got Howes to replace the
destroyed wheel immediately, but there are other minor things that still
need fixing, and my elbow is still bleeding occasionally where a sizeable
patch of skin was scraped off.
I've supposedly got the guy's name and address, and he said he was going to
pay, but I don't have total confidence in this as he was unable to show my
any identification at all. If I'd been able to hang onto his bike I'd have
felt that much happier.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Chris Thorpe
> It's quite possible to be in favour of upholding the law and against these
> two policies on the basis that the penalty is gross for the crime. Imagine
> the outcry if bikes were confiscated when cyclists were caught cycling the
> wrong way down the street.
I think it's a tad disingenuous to imply that wrapping your car around a
bollard is somehow a "penalty" in that sense. Perhaps a better analogy would
be someone writing off their cycle by riding it the wrong way down the
street straight into the front of an oncoming bus....
-- Chris
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
> where he was due to sign copies of his autobiography, Banksy.
>
> But as the Mercedes swept into Emmanuel Road at 12.30pm on Wednesday,
> their journey was suddenly and violently cut short.
What I don't understand is why he was in Emmanuel Road anyway.
I can't think of a route into town that would get you there
if you were aiming for the Grafton Centre that wouldn't already
have got you closer before.
Mike Clark
<URL:mailto:jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <ankgc8$rn4$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,
> Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
> >Indeed. And cyclists uniformly found it outrageous.
>
> Can I note that both Patrick and myself are cyclists, and neither of
> us found it outrageous.
>
Add me as a third example.
Mike Clark
That is one for the sat-nav software author perhaps?
Paul Rudin
Jonathan> In article <ankgc8$rn4$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,
Jonathan> Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
>> Indeed. And cyclists uniformly found it outrageous.
Jonathan> Can I note that both Patrick and myself are cyclists, and
Jonathan> neither of us found it outrageous.
And I'm both a cyclist and a motorist and I don't recall expressing an
opinion either way.
Mark Carroll
Mike Clark <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
(snip)
>Provided that they were only impounded until a fair fine was paid I
>wouldn't strongly object. The problem comes if confiscation meant permanent
>deprivation of the bike, and without legal rights of objection and
>representation.
Am I right in thinking that Customs sometimes confiscate and sell
people's vehicles if they used them to bring too many cigarettes back
from France or whatever? It seemed a bit bizarre to me.
I wonder if I'm not the only person who read the Subject: line of the
first article in this thread and thought "Iain M. Banks" instead of
"Gordon Banks".
-- Mark
Mark Carroll
>Acksherly, a number of people, myself included, were openly wondering if
>this could be arranged in this very newsgroup (or possibly cam.transport)
>not that long ago.
Mmmm. Although not a cyclist myself - it always seemed a bit too
dangerous for my liking - I can see that, if I were a cyclist, I'd
probably generally be law-abiding and be annoyed at the bad reputation
and poor treatment I might suffer through being tarred with the same
brush as the less-law-abiding cyclists, and would be happy for them to
be penalised sufficiently to improve their habits so that all cyclists
can benefit in a reaping-what-you-sow-as-a-group kind of way.
I know that most of the cycling readers here probably behave pretty
well on the roads but, just as with pedestrians and drivers, there are
a lot of incompetent/inconsiderate ones around too.
-- Mark
Steve Hunt
> your car around a bollard is somehow a "penalty" in that sense.
You're right. It's not a penalty - it's a consequence.
We've had this one before. (E.g. "Yes, he walked into
the road without looking, but should the penalty
for that be death?")
Reminds me of the way people mix up "fault" and "blame".
-- Steve
Paul Oldham
jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan Amery) growled:
> In article <ankgc8$rn4$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,
> Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
> >Indeed. And cyclists uniformly found it outrageous.
>
> Can I note that both Patrick and myself are cyclists, and neither of
> us found it outrageous.
Sounds great to me too. Can we do the same for the traffic light ignorers
and the illegal pavement users?
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ maintainer ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
"It's so long since I've had sex I've forgotten who ties up who"
Chris Thorpe
> > your car around a bollard is somehow a "penalty" in that sense.
>
> You're right. It's not a penalty - it's a consequence.
Yup. And the thread title is wrong, it should of course be
"Bollards hit by Banks' car"
-- Chris
Meldrew of Meldreth
<steve.s...@pobox.com> writes
>> But both can't be true.
>
>Why not? Car crashes into descending bollard. Car continues forward a
>bit, either to continue journey or because bollard has just grazed
>underside of car front. Bollard rises.
Because if the car has a transponder, the bollard won't rise under it.
[Unless there was a malfunction, which hasn't featured yet in the
speculation].
--
Meldrew of Meldreth - Beware imitations
The Original Meldrew Man - posting since November 2000
Diana Galletly
Mark Carroll <ma...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>I wonder if I'm not the only person who read the Subject: line of the
>first article in this thread and thought "Iain M. Banks" instead of
>"Gordon Banks".
You're not the only person who EXPNed Banks to Iain [M.] Banks, no.
But then, I'd just got back from town where I'd had to restrain myself
from buying his new book until it comes out in paperback.
--
+ Diana Galletly <dag...@eng.cam.ac.uk> +
+ http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly/ +
Meldrew of Meldreth
<r.moss-...@computer.org> writes
>What I don't understand is why he was in Emmanuel Road anyway.
>I can't think of a route into town that would get you there
>if you were aiming for the Grafton Centre that wouldn't already
>have got you closer before.
Huntingdon Rd? He might also have been aiming for the "front door" (ie
New Square) rather than the "back door" (East Rd).
Mark Carroll
Diana Galletly <dag...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
(snip)
>You're not the only person who EXPNed Banks to Iain [M.] Banks, no.
>But then, I'd just got back from town where I'd had to restrain myself
>from buying his new book until it comes out in paperback.
I was extremely surprised to see it in an apparently-paperback version
in a bookshop (at Heathrow T3 or Chicago O'Hare, perhaps), having just
bought it in hardback. I have been known to believe to have
experienced things that I couldn't possibly have, though. If you're
passing through I can loan you it. (-: It was the only book I can
think of recently that made me laugh out loud a few times, although my
sense of humour can be somewhat juvenile and my reading shallow so
YMMV.
-- Mark
Jonathan Amery
Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote:
>In article <TWd*Mi...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan Amery) growled:
*growl*
[impounding cycles]
>Sounds great to me too. Can we do the same for the traffic light ignorers
>and the illegal pavement users?
Sounds good to me. They always act innocent when I cycle after them
and shout...
--
Jonathan Amery. Every fiftieth year
##### Set the captives free:
#######__o Let the trumpet blast
#######'/ Summon jubilee.
Jonathan Amery
>But then, I'd just got back from town where I'd had to restrain myself
>from buying his new book until it comes out in paperback.
Another new Banksie? Ycleped?
--
Jonathan Amery. The Naming of Hosts is a difficult matter,
##### It isn't just one of your holiday games;
#######__o You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter - rfc2100
#######'/ When I tell you, a host must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.
Jonathan Amery
Meldrew of Meldreth <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>Huntingdon Rd? He might also have been aiming for the "front door" (ie
>New Square) rather than the "back door" (East Rd).
The bollard that they were fixing earlier this week (Thursday) was
the inwards-bound one (left side coming from Short Street towards Emma
Road).
--
Jonathan Amery. Don't push too far
##### Your dreams are china in your hand
#######__o Don't wish too hard
#######'/ Because they may come true - T'Pau
Chris Brown
Mike Clark <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <TWd*Mi...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Jonathan Amery
><URL:mailto:jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> In article <ankgc8$rn4$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,
>> Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Indeed. And cyclists uniformly found it outrageous.
>>
>> Can I note that both Patrick and myself are cyclists, and neither of
>> us found it outrageous.
>>
>
>Add me as a third example.
<AOL>
Me four
</AOL>
--
/* _ */main(int k,char**n){char*i=k&1?"+L*;99,RU[,RUo+BeKAA+BECACJ+CAACA"
/* / ` */"CD+LBCACJ*":1[n],j,l=!k,m;do for(m=*i-48,j=l?m/k:m%k;m>>7?k=1<<m+
/* | */8,!l&&puts(&l)**&l:j--;printf(" \0_/"+l));while((l^=3)||l[++i]);
/* \_,hris Brown -- All opinions expressed are probably wrong. */return 0;}
Mark Carroll
Dave {Reply Address in.sig} <noone$@llondel.org> wrote:
(snip)
>That's because you're too young.
FSVO "too" - I thought of commenting along those lines but didn't want
to imply that you're all a bunch of old fogeys. (-:
-- Mark
Meles
> Mind you, after Tuesday night's performance, I'm surprised the Us aren't
> trying to sign him as cover for Marshall.
>
> O.
How dare you! Marshall is only the last line of defence y'know. What a
night that was - 7-0 down and we were still singing. Now off to
Wrexham at home to try and convince the crowd to chant in Latin. It
really is shocking how little support the Us get from such a big town
- what do you think?
Killer
> ENGLAND football hero Gordon Banks escaped injury when the car he was
> travelling in was impaled on rising bollards in Cambridge city centre.
>
>
> But as the Mercedes swept into Emmanuel Road at 12.30pm on Wednesday,
> their journey was suddenly and violently cut short.
>
Swept?
If he wants to go "sweeping" into roads that's his bloody look-out.
Michael
Killer
> "MB_UK" <topca...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:81c11ce8.02100...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
>
>>And the chauffeur driving the former international goalie to a
>>book-signing now says he will sue Cambridgeshire County Council for
>>writing off his Mercedes.
>>
> <snip>
>
>>Mr Kephalas said: "I was using maps and my satellite navigation system
>>which took me straight in. We were in Emmanuel Road and I actually
>>
> <snip>
>
> Perhaps he should be suing the sat nav makers for not having the road as a
> closed road on their system?
My system clearly states that "Road Traffic Regulations must be obeyed
at all times".
But yes, they often get it wrong. Such as thinking Ross Street is
Thoday Street, for example. And having many mapping errors in London,
which is one of primary occasions on which one might really want to use
it in anger if there's nobody else in the car to help you navigate...
Michael
Jon Anderson
> In article <ant0417160e6Pk=+@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
> Mike Clark <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <TWd*Mi...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Jonathan Amery
>><URL:mailto:jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <ankgc8$rn4$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,
>>>Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Indeed. And cyclists uniformly found it outrageous.
>>>
>>> Can I note that both Patrick and myself are cyclists, and neither of
>>>us found it outrageous.
>>>
>>
>>Add me as a third example.
> <AOL>
> Me four
> </AOL>
Can I dissent for the hell of it?
Jon
--
Durge: j...@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: acco...@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
[ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]
Daniel Ellis
>
> I wonder if I'm not the only person who read the Subject: line of the
> first article in this thread and thought "Iain M. Banks" instead of
> "Gordon Banks".
When I first saw it I immediately thought that a car belonging to a bank had
been hit by a few bollards, although the apostrophe was a bit strange.
It's still rather strange (the title that is). I mean, for starters, surely
only one bollard was involved - unless my memory disserves me, isn't there
just one bollard in the lane? And surely the bollard didn't 'hit' the car,
they rise rather slowly, and the verb hit implies an impact of some velocity.
"Rising bollard writes off Banks' car", or "Bollard rises into Banks' car"
(to keep closer to the original copy length) would have got the gist over
better. But then I don't edit newspapers, so who am I to say...
--
Dan Ellis
mailto:d...@pod51.demon.co.uk
Steve Slatcher
<rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <ankepv$hid$1...@ns1.scientia.com>, Steve Slatcher
><steve.s...@pobox.com> writes
>>> But both can't be true.
>>
>>Why not? Car crashes into descending bollard. Car continues forward a
>>bit, either to continue journey or because bollard has just grazed
>>underside of car front. Bollard rises.
>
>Because if the car has a transponder, the bollard won't rise under it.
>[Unless there was a malfunction, which hasn't featured yet in the
>speculation].
A malfunction caused by impact perhaps? OK, I'm not saying this is
likely, but but it *is* possible that there is truth in both versions
of the story.
--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
Peter Benie
Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>I've supposedly got the guy's name and address, and he said he was going to
>pay, but I don't have total confidence in this as he was unable to show my
>any identification at all. If I'd been able to hang onto his bike I'd have
>felt that much happier.
I don't have a problem with the bike being confiscated in such
circumstances, but it mustn't be held by another party in the
accident. If you confiscate his bike, you will become liable for
damage to that bike. Since the bike is probably already damaged, you
will need to be able to show that any damage occured in the accident.
It sounds like a minefield - don't go there.
Peter
Thomas Womack
Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <ankogc$sgo$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>Diana Galletly <dag...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>You're not the only person who EXPNed Banks to Iain [M.] Banks, no.
>>But then, I'd just got back from town where I'd had to restrain myself
>>from buying his new book until it comes out in paperback.
>
> Another new Banksie? Ycleped?
Jon, I find your habit of asking questions that can be answered in
literally seconds with google or amazon very slightly irksome.
It's called _Dead Air_, it was written in six weeks as a reaction to
September 11th, and the people I've heard talking about it rate it as
one of his lesser works: it's usually ranked a bit above _The
Business_ and _Song of Stone_ but below the others.
[Tom orders it, the new Ken Macleod and the new Terry Pratchett in hardback
from amazon.co.uk]
Tom
Olly Johnson
> > Mind you, after Tuesday night's performance, I'm surprised the Us aren't
> > trying to sign him as cover for Marshall.
>
> How dare you! Marshall is only the last line of defence y'know. What a
> night that was - 7-0 down and we were still singing.
Well, he didn't get much cover on several occasions, but I'd have to put
him at fault for the first one.. and after that the deluge.
Was interesting to see the gap in class.
O.
--
otj...@cam.ac.uk http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~johnson 01223 337946
Christ's College and Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge
Mark Ayliffe
> Chris Brown wrote:
>> In article <ant0417160e6Pk=+@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
>> Mike Clark <mr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <TWd*Mi...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Jonathan Amery
>>> <URL:mailto:jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <ankgc8$rn4$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,
>>>> Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Indeed. And cyclists uniformly found it outrageous.
>>>>
>>>> Can I note that both Patrick and myself are cyclists, and neither
>>>> of us found it outrageous.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Add me as a third example.
>> <AOL>
>> Me four
>> </AOL>
>
> Can I dissent for the hell of it?
Good idea. Don't want anyone thinking that all we cyclists think the same
way. Oh.
Mark
Hugo 'NOx' Tyson
jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) writes:
> In article <m3it0it...@foo.surfingsuggestion.co.uk>,
> Hugo 'NOx' Tyson <hm...@surfingsuggestionx.co.ukx> wrote:
> >I don't see how "improvements to the A14" can mean anything but more
> >provision for private motorized transport, since the A14 is a road.
>
> <half-troll>
> There are some things that could be enormously improved by being got
> rid of ...
> </half-troll>
;-) IKWYM, but it depends on whether the thing has negative or positive
connotations.
Insisting on literal interpretations of things in the manner that
"improving typhoid" means making it stronger and better and more widespread
and more deadly, whilst "improving the typhoid problem" means the opposite,
still has some validity IMHO if we're trying to communicate with minimal
ambiguity.
But then even "problem" can be ambiguous:
"We have to address the refugee problem!"
"I agree: how can we make them all go away?"
Only car makers and road-haulage operators - or NIMBYs - would say that
Dr.Beeching improved the railways...
- Huge
Linda Fox
>
> Yup. And the thread title is wrong, it should of course be
>
> "Bollards hit by Banks' car"
I thought it was meant to be ironic. Maybe I'm just British
--
Linda ff
Edina: Family? Family? God, I hope you're not inviting that
bloody-bollocky, selfish two-faced, chicken bastard pig-dog man, are
you?
Saffron: You could just say Dad, I'd still know who you meant.
Chris Keating
> > <AOL>
> > Me four
> > </AOL>
>
> Can I dissent for the hell of it?
Dissent, or dissent from the dissent?
Chris Keating
"Thomas Womack" <two...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:lWd*WV...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article <hKd*c5...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> Jonathan Amery <jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >In article <ankogc$sgo$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> >Diana Galletly <dag...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>You're not the only person who EXPNed Banks to Iain [M.] Banks, no.
> >>But then, I'd just got back from town where I'd had to restrain myself
> >>from buying his new book until it comes out in paperback.
> >
> > Another new Banksie? Ycleped?
>
> Jon, I find your habit of asking questions that can be answered in
> literally seconds with google or amazon very slightly irksome.
Some people prefer talking to other people, not computers.
Chris Keating
"Diana Galletly" <dag...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ankogc$sgo$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <Plp*py...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> Mark Carroll <ma...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >I wonder if I'm not the only person who read the Subject: line of the
> >first article in this thread and thought "Iain M. Banks" instead of
> >"Gordon Banks".
>
> You're not the only person who EXPNed Banks to Iain [M.] Banks, no.
> But then, I'd just got back from town where I'd had to restrain myself
> from buying his new book until it comes out in paperback.
Actually I was still wondering what this footballer guy was doing, going to
a bank in Cambridge ...
Chris
Callas
> "Patrick Gosling" <jp...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > Acksherly, a number of people, myself included, were openly wondering if
> > this could be arranged in this very newsgroup (or possibly
> > cam.transport) not that long ago.
> Indeed. And cyclists uniformly found it outrageous.
As they should; it's disproportionate and as such, unjust.
I concur that riding down the wrong side of the road is common,
dangerous and a problem. However, I think frustration with the lack of
a viable solution to this problem does not justify such an extreme
measure.
It's rather like the three-strikes policy in the states. The American
failure to deal with the real causes of crime has led them to using
extreme and unjust measures against the symptoms of crime (the
criminals), because nothing they have tried has worked and they cannot
or will not deal with the real issues.
Crime is really a function of social inequality. Putting someone into
jail for life for stealing a pizza (after two counts of grand theft
auto) is not just nor does it deal with the real issue.
--
Callas
Callas
> jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan Amery) growled:
> > Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
> > >Indeed. And cyclists uniformly found it outrageous.
> > Can I note that both Patrick and myself are cyclists, and neither of
> > us found it outrageous.
> Sounds great to me too. Can we do the same for the traffic light ignorers
> and the illegal pavement users?
But why are you stopping there? I think for *any* cycling offence the
bike should be taken away. Same for drivers - *any* offence and your
car should be confiscated. So if you speed once, that's it.
And you ought to be for this because the line of reasoning being used
here inexorably leads to this conclusion.
You disagree? I thought you might :)
You guys are saying for any "serious" offence (as defined by you lot as
cycling the wrong way, ignoring a traffic light and using the pavement)
the bike is taken away.
So what's a serious offence and what isn't? everyone has their own
opinion. So the best concensus is using the defined rules; e.g. if you
break a law of the road.
Well you know that applies to cars too.
So why should my bike be taken away if I go through a red light when you
can keep your car while when you've done some speeding?
And now we finally get to the fundamental failure of this approach; the
punishment is *entirely disproportion to the crime*.
--
Callas
Callas
> >> Indeed. And cyclists uniformly found it outrageous.
> > To the best of my recollection, I'm a counterexample to that
> > assertion, and I believe there were quite a few others.
> I'm another
And you're both people who never cycle on the wrong side of the road, so
what does this prove except that the original assertation was overly
broad.
Don't nitpick; deal with the real issue - whether or not it's a just and
approprate measure.
--
Callas
Paul Oldham
cal...@summerblue.net (Callas) growled:
> pa...@the-hug.org wrote:
> > jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Jonathan Amery) growled:
> > > Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >Indeed. And cyclists uniformly found it outrageous.
>
> > > Can I note that both Patrick and myself are cyclists, and neither of
> > > us found it outrageous.
>
> > Sounds great to me too. Can we do the same for the traffic light
> > ignorers and the illegal pavement users?
>
> But why are you stopping there? I think for *any* cycling offence the
> bike should be taken away. Same for drivers - *any* offence and your
> car should be confiscated. So if you speed once, that's it.
Uh huh. Sounds good to me. So long as everyone's aware of the rules I see no
great problem with what you're proposing.
> And you ought to be for this because the line of reasoning being used
> here inexorably leads to this conclusion.
I don't think it does actually, I think a bike's value is not that
dissimilar to the level of fine for traffic offences for cars so I think
your reasoning is probably flawed. Still doesn't mean it's not a good idea
though ;-)
> You disagree? I thought you might :)
No. I agree. Sounds like an excellent idea in any case. Let's do it. It
should improve overall road safety no end.
It's either that or no seat belts and a spike in the centre of the steering
wheel ...
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ maintainer ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
"Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time."
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
[snip]
> I don't think it does actually, I think a bike's value is not that
> dissimilar to the level of fine for traffic offences for cars so I think
> your reasoning is probably flawed. Still doesn't mean it's not a good idea
> though ;-)
There are, of course, exceptions. My bike is worth more than my
car. Mind you the cost of a new one of each, rather than a
like-for-like replacement, or the sales value, is vastly different.
I have a Dawes Super-Galaxy with lots of trimmings and an M-reg
SEAT Toledo 1.6CL.
Tim Ward
news:3DA02CF2...@computer.org...
> Paul Oldham wrote:
> [snip]
> > I don't think it does actually, I think a bike's value is not that
> > dissimilar to the level of fine for traffic offences for cars so I think
> > your reasoning is probably flawed. Still doesn't mean it's not a good
idea
> > though ;-)
>
> There are, of course, exceptions. My bike is worth more than my
> car.
<AOL/>
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Richard Meredith
cal...@summerblue.net (Callas) wrote:
> It's rather like the three-strikes policy in the states. The American
> failure to deal with the real causes of crime has led them to using
> extreme and unjust measures against the symptoms of crime (the
> criminals), because nothing they have tried has worked and they cannot
> or will not deal with the real issues.
Misses the point that the cause of crime is that criminals commit them:
there are some people out there that are just plain bad, others who become
bad for a variety of reasons, and others who don't go bad despite every
psychobabble reasons for doing do.
People in the first group don't need sympathy and understanding, they just
need taking out of circulation, and the last group aren't a problem anyway
> Crime is really a function of social inequality.
Oh, that must be why van Hoogstraten has been found guilty of all sorts of
mayhem. It must be because he's as rich as Croesus already, and if he only
had the same amount of money as everyone else he wouldn't be such a crook.
The point I'm making is that it isn't as simple as you seem to be
portraying. The way "three strikes and you're out" has been implemented is
crude and unfair, I agree, but the general principle that someone who has a
long history of criminality is unlikely to suddenly reform is a good one,
and a system of escalating penalties for repeated offences doesn't strike me
as being fundamentally unjust.
Matthew Vernon
> "Thomas Womack" <two...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:lWd*WV...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> > Jon, I find your habit of asking questions that can be answered in
> > literally seconds with google or amazon very slightly irksome.
>
> Some people prefer talking to other people, not computers.
Jon, on the other hand... :-)
Matthew
[must remember not to be in the computer room next time Jon's reading
cam.misc :-)]
--
* Emperor reads cam.misc
* antinomy/#chiark puts some clothes on
<Emperor> that's our lives in a nutshell, isn't it?
Matthew Garrett
> So why should my bike be taken away if I go through a red light when you
> can keep your car while when you've done some speeding?
If you speed a sufficiently large number of times, you're entirely
prevented from driving. No matter how many times you go through a red
light on your bike (as long as you're able to pay the fine to reclaim your
bike each time) you'd be able carry on cycling. It's already
disproportionate, isn't it?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-c...@srcf.ucam.org
Jonathan Amery
Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>"Chris Keating" <chris.k...@bSPAMtopenworld.com> writes:
>> "Thomas Womack" <two...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:lWd*WV...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> > Jon, I find your habit of asking questions that can be answered in
>> > literally seconds with google or amazon very slightly irksome.
>> Some people prefer talking to other people, not computers.
Also, in this case, I found out more information by asking on
cam.misc than I would've been likely to have done on either google or
amazon (having stopped reading web-published reviews of books because
far too many of them have too many (>0) spoilers in them).
>Jon, on the other hand... :-)
<thwap!>
--
Jonathan Amery. Were the whole realm of nature mine,
##### That were a present far too small;
#######__o Love so amazing, so divine,
#######'/ Demands my soul, my life, my all. - Isaac Watts
Paul
news:MPG.180a2fc57...@news-east.giganews.com...
> Crime is really a function of social inequality. Putting someone into
> jail for life for stealing a pizza (after two counts of grand theft
> auto) is not just nor does it deal with the real issue.
Instinctively your analysis strikes a chord as being close to the truth, but
my second reaction was "what about Japan". A far more equal society, (until
recent years) and yet has an active and thriving Mafia known I belive as the
Yakuza. So yes I agree that "crime is really a function of social
inequality" (and the sooner 'we' improve the sink estates in this country
the better), but there remain a group of people determined to gain power by
violence, or the threat of it, and even in a well educated and equal society
like Japan, to try to rise above their fellow citizens materially not by all
the opportunities open to them but by the worst possible means. Does one
then conclude that these are Japan's dropouts, their least able, their
failures?
I agree with your central point though, equal societies provide less envy
and less motivation to feeling left out or abandoning hope of ever making
"the dream" come true, I suspect complete loss of hope of an alternative way
of making a living leads some people into crime, others just think it beats
working for a living, I don't think there's a solution to that.
Paul
Callas
> > > Sounds great to me too. Can we do the same for the traffic light
> > > ignorers and the illegal pavement users?
> > But why are you stopping there? I think for *any* cycling offence the
> > bike should be taken away. Same for drivers - *any* offence and your
> > car should be confiscated. So if you speed once, that's it.
> Uh huh. Sounds good to me. So long as everyone's aware of the rules I see no
> great problem with what you're proposing.
I see a major problem when reckless drunk driving is punished in exactly
the same manner as parking on a double yellow line.
> > And you ought to be for this because the line of reasoning being used
> > here inexorably leads to this conclusion.
> I don't think it does actually, I think a bike's value is not that
> dissimilar to the level of fine for traffic offences for cars so I think
> your reasoning is probably flawed. Still doesn't mean it's not a good idea
> though ;-)
The monetry value of the item confiscated is not an accurate way of
valuing the item.
In both cases it seems to be the aim of the punishment is to remove from
the offender the means of committing the crime, rather than to inflict a
monetry loss.
If the aim is a monetry loss, then the punishment is aboslutely unjust
because it fails to take into account the financial situation of the
offender; so Mr.Rich who can simply go off and buy another car won't
give a damn whereas Mr.Poor who only has a bike because he's on the dole
and can't afford a car will really suffer.
OTOH, your argument ignores the injustice of decoupling crime and
punishment so you may not regard this as a problem either!
--
Callas
Callas
> Callas wrote:
> > So why should my bike be taken away if I go through a red light when you
> > can keep your car while when you've done some speeding?
> If you speed a sufficiently large number of times, you're entirely
> prevented from driving. No matter how many times you go through a red
> light on your bike (as long as you're able to pay the fine to reclaim your
> bike each time) you'd be able carry on cycling. It's already
> disproportionate, isn't it?
That (as I'm sure you know) does not justify implimenting injustice to
solve injustice. To do so is in fact worse than the original situation,
because the original situation has arisen through poor laws and a lack
of enforcement (accidental/incompetence injustice) as opposed to the
latter situation, which is deliberately designed and enforced injustice.
--
Callas
Callas
> > Crime is really a function of social inequality. Putting someone into
> > jail for life for stealing a pizza (after two counts of grand theft
> > auto) is not just nor does it deal with the real issue.
>
> Instinctively your analysis strikes a chord as being close to the truth, but
> my second reaction was "what about Japan". A far more equal society, (until
> recent years) and yet has an active and thriving Mafia known I belive as the
> Yakuza. So yes I agree that "crime is really a function of social
> inequality" (and the sooner 'we' improve the sink estates in this country
> the better), but there remain a group of people determined to gain power by
> violence, or the threat of it, and even in a well educated and equal society
> like Japan, to try to rise above their fellow citizens materially not by all
> the opportunities open to them but by the worst possible means. Does one
> then conclude that these are Japan's dropouts, their least able, their
> failures?
I think the conclusion will be (although I have not yet read Japanese
history) that the Yakuza established themselves in a time prior to the
current modern state of Japan, and once established, were able to
survive and exist in a state where they could no longer actually arise.
The Yakuza are not a product of social inequality in modern Japan, but
an organisation which evolved from an older time of social inequality
and now continues to thrive in it's highly organised form.
> I agree with your central point though, equal societies provide less envy
> and less motivation to feeling left out or abandoning hope of ever making
> "the dream" come true, I suspect complete loss of hope of an alternative way
> of making a living leads some people into crime, others just think it beats
> working for a living, I don't think there's a solution to that.
I think a lot of people are also complete twats, which makes it easy for
them to drift into crime given an appropriate situation. TBH I think a
lot of people would commit crime (theft for example) in the right
situation. Thankfully, most people are not put in that situation.
--
Callas
Callas
> > It's rather like the three-strikes policy in the states. The American
> > failure to deal with the real causes of crime has led them to using
> > extreme and unjust measures against the symptoms of crime (the
> > criminals), because nothing they have tried has worked and they cannot
> > or will not deal with the real issues.
> Misses the point that the cause of crime is that criminals commit them:
I don't think so - in fact I think what you've just said *is* the
mistake at the heart of the three-strike system.
People typically have little control over their destiny. I had a good
mother, I had a university education, no real bad influences, I was
pretty much destined to become a reasonable citizen.
Take a black urban American, no education, no hope, bad influences,
drugs guns and crime, he's pretty likely to commit crime.
The criminal commits the crime, yes - but why is he a criminal in the
first place?
> there are some people out there that are just plain bad, others who become
> bad for a variety of reasons, and others who don't go bad despite every
> psychobabble reasons for doing do.
> People in the first group don't need sympathy and understanding, they just
> need taking out of circulation, and the last group aren't a problem anyway
I agree.
> > Crime is really a function of social inequality.
> Oh, that must be why van Hoogstraten has been found guilty of all sorts of
> mayhem. It must be because he's as rich as Croesus already, and if he only
> had the same amount of money as everyone else he wouldn't be such a crook.
> The point I'm making is that it isn't as simple as you seem to be
> portraying.
No, really? you mean there are exceptions and stuff? wow!
I think I've got the body of the problem correctly defined, as best I
can given my knowledge and understanding. Of *COURSE* there are
exceptions.
> The way "three strikes and you're out" has been implemented is
> crude and unfair, I agree, but the general principle that someone who has a
> long history of criminality is unlikely to suddenly reform is a good one,
> and a system of escalating penalties for repeated offences doesn't strike me
> as being fundamentally unjust.
It does to me because it ignores the specific case and brands everyone
with the same iron. It's convenient, especially with an overburdened
legal system, but it isn't ethical.
--
Callas
Richard Meredith
cal...@summerblue.net (Callas) wrote:
> People typically have little control over their destiny. I had a good
> mother, I had a university education, no real bad influences, I was
> pretty much destined to become a reasonable citizen.
Yes - but there are still a substantial minority who given the same start in
life go on to become thoroughly unreasonable ones.
> Take a black urban American, no education, no hope, bad influences,
> drugs guns and crime, he's pretty likely to commit crime.
Some do - but most do not (at least not in any serious way).
> The criminal commits the crime, yes - but why is he a criminal in the
> first place?
There are at least two things here: one is why he started out or continued
in a criminal career, and the other is what you do with persistent
offenders.
Reforming criminals is good I agree, but what do you do with them if for any
reason this fails? At some point you have to start considering the fact that
they're not improving, and you need to start considering the need to protect
the public against their depredations, and consider what effect their
continuing presence in their community is having on others - both from the
direct effects of their crimes and on the influence they may be having on
others who have not yet become criminals themselves. That last *is*
somewhere where simply taking crooks out of circulation does address the
causes of criminality.
I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Taking someone with a
couple of convictions for mugging and then banging him up for life for
parking on a double yellow line is absurd, I agree. As is doing the same for
someone who's caught shoplifting trivial amounts three times over a period
of years.
If the criminal justice system isn't reforming the reformable then I agree
it is failing: on the other hand, if it is not protecting the public at
large against the criminals then that is a greater failure, since that must
be the primary purpose of the system.
Meldrew of Meldreth
<cal...@summerblue.net> writes
>Crime is really a function of social inequality. Putting someone into
>jail for life for stealing a pizza (after two counts of grand theft
>auto) is not just nor does it deal with the real issue.
Oddly enough, someone was saying on the TV just this last week that the
UK Socialist policy of promoting social equality since WW2 has entirely
failed to reduce crime.
--
Meldrew of Meldreth - Beware imitations
The Original Meldrew Man - posting since November 2000
Callas
> Callas wrote:
> >Crime is really a function of social inequality. Putting someone into
> >jail for life for stealing a pizza (after two counts of grand theft
> >auto) is not just nor does it deal with the real issue.
> Oddly enough, someone was saying on the TV just this last week that the
> UK Socialist policy of promoting social equality since WW2 has entirely
> failed to reduce crime.
1. Who said it?
2. What definition of social inequality is being used?
3. How are they measuring crime?
4. Have the policies adopted actually been effective in reducing social
equality?
I think it's a bogus statement by whoever made it.
For example, consider the welfare state under the most recent Tory
government; if you were unemployed, you had a pittance - that's social
inequality. Of course, the underlying problem is a failure to be
educated in the first place so you can get a decent job. And why do
people fail to be educated? either they lack the basic brainpower or
they're in an environment which encourages them not to respond to
education - which is social inequality of another form.
--
Callas
Paul Rudin
Callas> rol...@perry.co.uk wrote:
>> Callas wrote:
>> >Crime is really a function of social inequality. Putting someone
>> into >jail for life for stealing a pizza (after two counts of
>> grand theft >auto) is not just nor does it deal with the real
>> issue.
>> Oddly enough, someone was saying on the TV just this last week
>> that the UK Socialist policy of promoting social equality since
>> WW2 has entirely failed to reduce crime.
Callas> 1. Who said it? 2. What definition of social inequality is
Callas> being used? 3. How are they measuring crime? 4. Have the
Callas> policies adopted actually been effective in reducing social
Callas> equality?
More to the point: the fact that a small party has it as a policy is
unlike to have any impact anyway. _If_there is a link between social
equality in crime, then movements in social equality (however one
meaures that) might make a difference, not merely the adoption of a
policy by a fringe party...
Paul Oldham
Meldreth) growled:
> Oddly enough, someone was saying on the TV just this last week that the
> UK Socialist policy of promoting social equality since WW2 has entirely
> failed to reduce crime.
Clearly talking bollocks then as we've not had a socialist government since
1951, if at all.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ maintainer ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
"Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else"
Tim Ward
news:memo.20021006...@paul.the-hug.org...
> In article <E91sOdBv...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Meldrew of
> Meldreth) growled:
>
> > Oddly enough, someone was saying on the TV just this last week that the
> > UK Socialist policy of promoting social equality since WW2 has entirely
> > failed to reduce crime.
>
> Clearly talking bollocks then as we've not had a socialist government
since
> 1951, if at all.
Well, we do have a system whereby if you fall down in the street you are
loaded into the ambulance *without* anyone checking your credit rating
first. And if you need pain relief during childbirth you *aren't* denied it
if you don't happen to have $400 in cash on you. Unlike some places.
According to some people that's "socialist". Personally I prefer it our way.
Mark Ayliffe
> "Paul Oldham" <pa...@the-hug.org> wrote in message
> news:memo.20021006...@paul.the-hug.org...
>> In article <E91sOdBv...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk
>> (Meldrew of Meldreth) growled:
>>
>>> Oddly enough, someone was saying on the TV just this last week that
>>> the UK Socialist policy of promoting social equality since WW2 has
>>> entirely failed to reduce crime.
>>
>> Clearly talking bollocks then as we've not had a socialist government
> since
>> 1951, if at all.
>
> Well, we do have a system whereby if you fall down in the street you
> are loaded into the ambulance *without* anyone checking your credit
> rating first. And if you need pain relief during childbirth you
> *aren't* denied it if you don't happen to have $400 in cash on you.
> Unlike some places.
>
> According to some people that's "socialist". Personally I prefer it
> our way.
<AOL>
And on the whole our poor don't die of hunger or being forced to drink dirty
water. And our unemployed still have the means to live, albeit at a poor
level relative to the rest of us. Better chances than 2/3 of the world then.
And certainly an improvement since the situation before WWII.
But anyone who deduces that "social equality" will eliminate crime is
clearly a complete nutter anyway. We only need one rich criminal to blow
that theory away and our prisons no doubt contain several.
Of course x% of the UK population is in the richest y% of the world (where x
>> y) and we won't have true equality until everyone is in that bracket.
Modesty forbids me from using the appropriate word to describe such
nonsense. And if you're using non-financial means to describe equality, then
we must be pretty much there.
Mark
Callas
> But anyone who deduces that "social equality" will eliminate crime is
> clearly a complete nutter anyway. We only need one rich criminal to blow
> that theory away and our prisons no doubt contain several.
If social inequality is responsible for the majority of crime, then the
elimination of social inequality will remove the majority of crime.
There are other causes of crime but compared to the primary cause, they
are minor.
That argument is consistent (correctness is another matter of course)
and acknowledges a minority of criminals become so for reasons other
than social inequality. As such, your argument that "only one rich
criminal..." is meaningless, since no one is arguing social inequality
is responsible for 100% of crime.
> Of course x% of the UK population is in the richest y% of the world (where x
> >> y) and we won't have true equality until everyone is in that bracket.
> Modesty forbids me from using the appropriate word to describe such
> nonsense. And if you're using non-financial means to describe equality, then
> we must be pretty much there.
The problem lies in human nature. A person stuck on income support
doens't compare himself to Bwanga Mhabi in the Sudan, he compares
himself to richer Englishmen. Perception of social inequality is
relative to the local environment.
--
Callas
Ian Cowley
news:anke39$oi9$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>
> two policies on the basis that the penalty is gross for the crime. Imagine
> the outcry if bikes were confiscated when cyclists were caught cycling the
> wrong way down the street.
Yes please! I am a cyclist as well as a pedestrian and motorist, but please
get these cyclists who have no regard for personal safety or road laws off
our streets!
--
Ian Cowley
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Ian Cowley
news:ant0417160e6Pk=+...@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <TWd*Mi...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Jonathan Amery
> <URL:mailto:jda...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > In article <ankgc8$rn4$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,
> > Robert Macmillan <rob...@mbe-windsor.co.uk> wrote:
> > >Indeed. And cyclists uniformly found it outrageous.
> >
> > Can I note that both Patrick and myself are cyclists, and neither of
> > us found it outrageous.
> >
>
>
<sorry>
Me four
</sorry>
Nick Wagg
>
> Gordon Banks was once considered the best goalkeeper in the world and
> pulled off what many believe was the best save ever, blocking a Pele
> header in the 1970 World Cup game against Brazil. His career was ended
> in 1974 after he lost the sight in one eye after a car crash.
This makes him sound blameless. He was actually driving under the
influence at the time, so it was all entirely his own fault, although
he was a talented goalie, as any Stoke City supporter of the time will
testify.
--
Nick Wagg
TranscenData Europe Ltd, Oakington House, Oakington, Cambridge CB4 5AF
Email: nick...@transcendata.com URL: www.transcendata.com
Tel: +44 (0)1223 237111 Fax: +44 (0)1223 234192
Olly Johnson
> he was a talented goalie, as any Stoke City supporter
I thought the collective noun was 'both'..?
O.
--
otj...@cam.ac.uk http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~johnson 01223 337946
Christ's College and Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge
MB_UK
> > > I think it's a tad disingenuous to imply that wrapping
> > > your car around a bollard is somehow a "penalty" in that sense.
> >
> > You're right. It's not a penalty - it's a consequence.
>
> Yup. And the thread title is wrong, it should of course be
>
> "Bollards hit by Banks' car"
>
> -- Chris
Don't blame me, I just copied the title from the CEN!
Richard Meredith
cal...@summerblue.net (Callas) wrote:
>
> If social inequality is responsible for the majority of crime, then the
> elimination of social inequality will remove the majority of crime.
> There are other causes of crime but compared to the primary cause, they
> are minor.
>
> That argument is consistent (correctness is another matter of course)
As is practicality: I am not aware of any society anywhere that has managed
to eliminate social equality, or even come passably close. Those that have
claimed to have tried have merely moved the goalposts around.