The making safe mania - drink driving
Alex Buell
<{$spamblock$}@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
>Until then, if you want to go out & get pissed & then drive your car -
>tough.
Hear, hear.
Well said, sir!
Cheers,
Alex.
--
Wiggle this way, wiggle that way.
Mac
>
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:03:35 GMT, simon gray
> <{$spamblock$}@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >Until then, if you want to go out & get pissed & then drive your car -
> >tough.
>
> Hear, hear.
>
> Well said, sir!
>
Agreed. I think RH has really lost it here.
--
Mac.
Robert Henderson
<{$spamblock$}@star-one.org.uk> writes
>Down on uk.misc street, the vibe from pmro...@my-deja.com is:
>
>> It seems to me that in arguing whether tired people or drunk people
>> are more dangerous behind a wheel you're all kind of missing the
>> point, it's like arguing which end of the crashing plane will hit the
>> ground first.
>>
>> The point is surely that neither tired people nor drunk people should
>> have control of a very heavy and dangerous piece of machinery. Neither
>> of them are in a fit state to drive. The trouble is that most people
>> are so used to using cars, and so touchy about being criticised, that
>> they find that fact very difficult to accept.
>
>Indeed.
>
>There is also the fundamental difference that it's very easy to come up
>with some measurable level of 'drunkenness' (& a means to measure it)
>that can't be argued with in court & enforce it, whereas you can't
>unarguably measure how well somebody walks in a straight line & touches
>their nose that would be any use to a court, & you can't unarguably
>measure how tired they are that would be any use to a court.
>
>When people stop getting drunk, driving their cars, & killing themselves
>& others, *then* it might be a good time to look at bringing a bit more
>latitude back in to the laws for drunk driving.
>
The point is that drink driving causes few accidents. Why penalise
something so vigorously which only accounts for a very small percentage
of accidents? RH
>tough.
>
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
TAKEOUT.com> writes
>Alex Buell wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:03:35 GMT, simon gray
>> <{$spamblock$}@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >tough.
>>
>>
>> Well said, sir!
>>
>
>Agreed. I think RH has really lost it here.
>
surrounding drink driving and the actual number of accidents, ie very
few. I would also like to see a breakdown of the times of day and points
in the year at which drink drive offences occur. I would not mind
betting that most drink drive accidents occur in the evening because
most will occur as people drive from pubs. If I am right, and a
disproportionate number drink drive accidents do occur in the evening,
with the subsequent reduction in visibility, it could be that many of
those accidents occur because of the reduced visibility not because of
the drink. One would also expect the number of drink drive accidents to
increase as nights get longer. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Steve Frazer
news:9s31HAAt...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> >& others, *then* it might be a good time to look at bringing a bit more
> >latitude back in to the laws for drunk driving.
> >
> The point is that drink driving causes few accidents. Why penalise
> something so vigorously which only accounts for a very small percentage
> of accidents? RH
Your right. Murderers also kill very few people so I don't think they should
be penalised when far more people die of smoking related diseases. Top notch
logic RH, as always ;-)
--
Steve
"The Only Thing Worse Than IGNORANCE Is Acting On It"
http://members.xoom.com/steve_frazer/
Steve Frazer
news:f6fvss0hl7p88on10...@4ax.com...
> Iain A F Fleming <ia...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>
> >Mac <smoket...@bigfootTAKEOUT.com> writes:
> >
> >> Alex Buell wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:03:35 GMT, simon gray
> >> > <{$spamblock$}@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Until then, if you want to go out & get pissed & then drive your
car -
> >> > >tough.
> >> >
> >> > Hear, hear.
> >> >
> >> > Well said, sir!
> >>
> >> Agreed. I think RH has really lost it here.
> >
>
> I suspect he never had it in the first place.
That would explain why he thought that there was no possible reason for a
woman to lie naked next to a man unless she had consented to sexual
intercourse with him. I just wish my wife would listen to RH :-)
Robert Henderson
<steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9s31HAAt...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <u5pussshslcku54tk...@4ax.com>, simon gray
>> >When people stop getting drunk, driving their cars, & killing themselves
>> >& others, *then* it might be a good time to look at bringing a bit more
>> >latitude back in to the laws for drunk driving.
>> >
>> The point is that drink driving causes few accidents. Why penalise
>> something so vigorously which only accounts for a very small percentage
>> of accidents? RH
>
>Your right. Murderers also kill very few people so I don't think they should
>be penalised when far more people die of smoking related diseases. Top notch
>logic RH, as always ;-)
>--
>
>"The Only Thing Worse Than IGNORANCE Is Acting On It"
>http://members.xoom.com/steve_frazer/
>
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
>Liam Collins <lpcN...@meouse47.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:f6fvss0hl7p88on10...@4ax.com...
>> Iain A F Fleming <ia...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Mac <smoket...@bigfootTAKEOUT.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Alex Buell wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:03:35 GMT, simon gray
>> >> > <{$spamblock$}@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >Until then, if you want to go out & get pissed & then drive your
>car -
>> >> > >tough.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hear, hear.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well said, sir!
>> >>
>> >> Agreed. I think RH has really lost it here.
>> >
>> >Here? Here, there and everywhere.
>>
>> I suspect he never had it in the first place.
>
>That would explain why he thought that there was no possible reason for a
>woman to lie naked next to a man unless she had consented to sexual
>intercourse with him. I just wish my wife would listen to RH :-)
>--
>
To provoke a situation where she may cry rape perhaps? RH
Steve Frazer
> In article <8qq56g$fodcn$2...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de>, Steve Frazer
> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
> >Liam Collins <lpcN...@meouse47.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> >That would explain why he thought that there was no possible reason for a
> >woman to lie naked next to a man unless she had consented to sexual
> >intercourse with him. I just wish my wife would listen to RH :-)
> >
> To provoke a situation where she may cry rape perhaps? RH
To go to sleep on a hot evening? Because she is used to sleeping in the
nude? Because she wants a massage? Because she wants an intimate cuddle?
Because she trusts the person she is with? Is your experience so limited
that you really can only see one reason?
--
Steve Frazer
> In article <8qq56f$fodcn$1...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de>, Steve Frazer
> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
> >> In article <u5pussshslcku54tk...@4ax.com>, simon gray
> >> >When people stop getting drunk, driving their cars, & killing
themselves
> >> >& others, *then* it might be a good time to look at bringing a bit
more
> >> >latitude back in to the laws for drunk driving.
> >> >
> >> The point is that drink driving causes few accidents. Why penalise
> >> something so vigorously which only accounts for a very small percentage
> >> of accidents? RH
> >
> >Your right. Murderers also kill very few people so I don't think they
should
> >be penalised when far more people die of smoking related diseases. Top
notch
> >logic RH, as always ;-)
> >--
> >
> As you usual you miss point, which is intent. RH
So you've never heard of recklessness or negligence?
Robert Henderson
<steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:TPeOfaAU...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <8qq56g$fodcn$2...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de>, Steve Frazer
>> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
>> >Liam Collins <lpcN...@meouse47.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> I suspect he never had it in the first place.
>> >
>> >That would explain why he thought that there was no possible reason for a
>> >woman to lie naked next to a man unless she had consented to sexual
>> >intercourse with him. I just wish my wife would listen to RH :-)
>> >
>> Now let me see, what other reason could their be for a woman doing that?
>> To provoke a situation where she may cry rape perhaps? RH
>
>To go to sleep on a hot evening? Because she is used to sleeping in the
>nude? Because she wants a massage? Because she wants an intimate cuddle?
>Because she trusts the person she is with? Is your experience so limited
>that you really can only see one reason?
>--
>
the best thing since sliced bread. RH
>"The Only Thing Worse Than IGNORANCE Is Acting On It"
>http://members.xoom.com/steve_frazer/
>
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
>
>Steve
>"The Only Thing Worse Than IGNORANCE Is Acting On It"
>http://members.xoom.com/steve_frazer/
>
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
Steve Frazer
> In article <8qrav3$g7m6m$1...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de>, Steve Frazer
> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
> >Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:TPeOfaAU...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <8qq56g$fodcn$2...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de>, Steve Frazer
> >> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
> >> >Liam Collins <lpcN...@meouse47.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >> I suspect he never had it in the first place.
> >> >
> >> >That would explain why he thought that there was no possible reason
for a
> >> >woman to lie naked next to a man unless she had consented to sexual
> >> >intercourse with him. I just wish my wife would listen to RH :-)
> >> >
> >> Now let me see, what other reason could their be for a woman doing
that?
> >> To provoke a situation where she may cry rape perhaps? RH
> >
> >To go to sleep on a hot evening? Because she is used to sleeping in the
> >nude? Because she wants a massage? Because she wants an intimate cuddle?
> >Because she trusts the person she is with? Is your experience so limited
> >that you really can only see one reason?
> >
My God, a 50 year old virgin. Is your insaness visible to the naked eye
then?
> After all, you believe Blair is the best thing since sliced bread. RH
No just better than the alternatives we have at present.
Steve Frazer
> In article <8qrb75$gf25e$1...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de>, Steve Frazer
> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
> >> >> >When people stop getting drunk, driving their cars, & killing
> >themselves
> >> >> >& others, *then* it might be a good time to look at bringing a bit
> >more
> >> >> >latitude back in to the laws for drunk driving.
> >> >> >
> >> >> The point is that drink driving causes few accidents. Why penalise
> >> >> something so vigorously which only accounts for a very small
percentage
> >> >> of accidents? RH
> >> >
> >> >Your right. Murderers also kill very few people so I don't think they
> >should
> >> >be penalised when far more people die of smoking related diseases. Top
> >notch
> >> >logic RH, as always ;-)
> >> >
> >
> >So you've never heard of recklessness or negligence?
> That is not relevant to an analogy between murder and drink driving. RH
Of course it is. Knowingly driving whilst your driving ability is impaired
is reckless. That includes driving whilst intoxicated or whilst very tired.
Recklessness would be enough to show intent in law.
Robert Henderson
<steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
> >> >
>> >> >Your right. Murderers also kill very few people so I don't think they
>> >should
>> >> >be penalised when far more people die of smoking related diseases. Top
>> >notch
>> >> >logic RH, as always ;-)
>> >> >
>> >
>> >So you've never heard of recklessness or negligence?
>> That is not relevant to an analogy between murder and drink driving. RH
>
>Of course it is. Knowingly driving whilst your driving ability is impaired
>is reckless. That includes driving whilst intoxicated or whilst very tired.
>Recklessness would be enough to show intent in law.
>--
between murder and drink driving. One is not charged with murder even if
one kills through observed reckless driving, say hitting someone on
whilst driving on the wrong side of the motorway. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Tarquin Gloopwurt
Looks like a Bob clone to me.
"Liam Collins" <lpcN...@meouse47.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f6fvss0hl7p88on10...@4ax.com...
> Iain A F Fleming <ia...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>
> >Mac <smoket...@bigfootTAKEOUT.com> writes:
> >
> >> Alex Buell wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:03:35 GMT, simon gray
> >> > <{$spamblock$}@star-one.org.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Until then, if you want to go out & get pissed & then drive your
car -
> >> > >tough.
> >> >
> >> > Hear, hear.
> >> >
> >> > Well said, sir!
> >>
> >> Agreed. I think RH has really lost it here.
> >
> >Here? Here, there and everywhere.
>
> I suspect he never had it in the first place.
> --
> Liam
Marc Living
<steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> >So you've never heard of recklessness or negligence?
>> That is not relevant to an analogy between murder and drink driving. RH
>Of course it is. Knowingly driving whilst your driving ability is impaired
>is reckless. That includes driving whilst intoxicated or whilst very tired.
>Recklessness would be enough to show intent in law.
Recklessnes is certainly sufficient intent for *some* offences (not
all). But even those offences which accept recklessness as
constituting intent still require an actus - iow they require some
harm to have been done to somebody as a result of said recklessness.
Recklessness has never been an offence in its own right: there must be
some resulting harm.
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK." to reply)
***********************************************
"The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall
would be to make Parliament utterly subservient
to his will; and the next to overturn or diminish
trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin
http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk
************************************************
Robert Henderson
<steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes>news:G4H7CIAy...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <8qrav3$g7m6m$1...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de>, Steve Frazer
>> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
>> >Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:TPeOfaAU...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> >> In article <8qq56g$fodcn$2...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de>, Steve Frazer
>> >> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
>> >> >Liam Collins <lpcN...@meouse47.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> >> I suspect he never had it in the first place.
>> >> >
>> >> >That would explain why he thought that there was no possible reason
>for a
>> >> >woman to lie naked next to a man unless she had consented to sexual
>> >> >intercourse with him. I just wish my wife would listen to RH :-)
>> >> >
>> >> Now let me see, what other reason could their be for a woman doing
>that?
>> >> To provoke a situation where she may cry rape perhaps? RH
>> >
>> >To go to sleep on a hot evening? Because she is used to sleeping in the
>> >nude? Because she wants a massage? Because she wants an intimate cuddle?
>> >Because she trusts the person she is with? Is your experience so limited
>> >that you really can only see one reason?
>> >
>
>My God, a 50 year old virgin. Is your insaness visible to the naked eye
>then?
>
your "I'm a full time dad" utterly bogus. RH
>
>No just better than the alternatives we have at present.
>--
>Steve
>"The Only Thing Worse Than IGNORANCE Is Acting On It"
>http://members.xoom.com/steve_frazer/
>
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
Steve Frazer
> In article <8qt0ol$ga86o$1...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de>, Steve Frazer
> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
> >> >> >That would explain why he thought that there was no possible reason
> >for a
> >> >> >woman to lie naked next to a man unless she had consented to sexual
> >> >> >intercourse with him. I just wish my wife would listen to RH :-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> Now let me see, what other reason could their be for a woman doing
> >that?
> >> >> To provoke a situation where she may cry rape perhaps? RH
> >> >
> >> >To go to sleep on a hot evening? Because she is used to sleeping in
the
> >> >nude? Because she wants a massage? Because she wants an intimate
cuddle?
> >> >Because she trusts the person she is with? Is your experience so
limited
> >> >that you really can only see one reason?
> >> >
All of the reasons I gave are legitimate. You are a total fool.
Steve Frazer
news:8qt116$ggbsq$1...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de...> news:Jo64WPAH...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <8qrb75$gf25e$1...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de>, Steve Frazer
> > <steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
> > >> >> >When people stop getting drunk, driving their cars, & killing
> > >themselves
> > >> >> >& others, *then* it might be a good time to look at bringing a
bit
> > >more
> > >> >> >latitude back in to the laws for drunk driving.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> The point is that drink driving causes few accidents. Why penalise
> > >> >> something so vigorously which only accounts for a very small
> percentage
> > >> >> of accidents? RH
> > >> >
> > >> >Your right. Murderers also kill very few people so I don't think
they
> > >should
> > >> >be penalised when far more people die of smoking related diseases.
Top
> > >notch
> > >> >logic RH, as always ;-)
> > >> >
> > >
> > >So you've never heard of recklessness or negligence?
> > >-
>
> Of course it is. Knowingly driving whilst your driving ability is impaired
> is reckless. That includes driving whilst intoxicated or whilst very
tired.
> Recklessness would be enough to show intent in law.
So does the lack of response show you accept the point or will you just
ignore the facts and peddle your mistakes again in a few weeks?
Steve Frazer
> In article <8qt116$ggbsq$1...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de>, Steve Frazer
> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
> > >> >
> >> >> >Your right. Murderers also kill very few people so I don't think
they
> >> >should
> >> >> >be penalised when far more people die of smoking related diseases.
Top
> >> >notch
> >> >> >logic RH, as always ;-)
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >So you've never heard of recklessness or negligence?
> >> That is not relevant to an analogy between murder and drink driving.
RH
> >
> >Of course it is. Knowingly driving whilst your driving ability is
impaired
> >is reckless. That includes driving whilst intoxicated or whilst very
tired.
> >Recklessness would be enough to show intent in law.
> Yes, it is may be reckless, but that has no relevance to a comparison
> between murder and drink driving. One is not charged with murder even if
> one kills through observed reckless driving, say hitting someone on
> whilst driving on the wrong side of the motorway. RH
You can be charged with murder if your actions were reckless. There are
specific charges for killing whilst driving. Your point was that because the
number of accidents is so few no penalties should be required. Murders
causes few deaths so by your logic that should mean not having penalties for
murder. When it's pointed out to you that recklessness can be construed as
intent you try to weasel out of your silliness by pointing out the obvious,
that there are separate offences for murder and killing whilst driving.
Completely bloody stupid.
Do think BEFORE you post.
Steve Frazer
news:4q35ts4n6atdd65mj...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:39:58 +0100, "Steve Frazer"
> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >> >So you've never heard of recklessness or negligence?
>
> >> That is not relevant to an analogy between murder and drink driving.
RH
>
> >Of course it is. Knowingly driving whilst your driving ability is
impaired
> >is reckless. That includes driving whilst intoxicated or whilst very
tired.
> >Recklessness would be enough to show intent in law.
>
> Recklessnes is certainly sufficient intent for *some* offences (not
> all). But even those offences which accept recklessness as
> constituting intent still require an actus - iow they require some
> harm to have been done to somebody as a result of said recklessness.
>
> Recklessness has never been an offence in its own right: there must be
> some resulting harm.
The drink driving law acts in a preventative way. In this case it is better
to penalise a drink driver for alcohol in his blood stream to deter him from
trying to drive whilst drunk, than to have to explain to parents why their
child won't be coming home or why they can no longer walk. People sometimes
need a nudge to act responsibly, hence speed limits, MOT, zig-zags outside
schools, zebra crossings, etc. You're surely not agreeing with RH that there
should be no offence of drink driving? I'll have to start checking your
headers ;-)
Marc Living
<steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> >Of course it is. Knowingly driving whilst your driving ability is
>impaired
>> >is reckless. That includes driving whilst intoxicated or whilst very
>tired.
>> >Recklessness would be enough to show intent in law.
>> Recklessnes is certainly sufficient intent for *some* offences (not
>> all). But even those offences which accept recklessness as
>> constituting intent still require an actus - iow they require some
>> harm to have been done to somebody as a result of said recklessness.
>> Recklessness has never been an offence in its own right: there must be
>> some resulting harm.
>The drink driving law acts in a preventative way.
Something which was alien to the English legal system until this
century. Whilst common sense suggests that it isn't a good idea to
allow people who are drunk (or otherwise impaired) loose in cars, I
still feel uneasy about laws which are enforced for their own sake.
>In this case it is better
>to penalise a drink driver for alcohol in his blood stream to deter him from
>trying to drive whilst drunk, than to have to explain to parents why their
>child won't be coming home or why they can no longer walk.
I suppose the pig-tailed child was carrying a puppy too, which was
also killed by the nasty driver.
>People sometimes
>need a nudge to act responsibly, hence speed limits, MOT, zig-zags outside
>schools, zebra crossings, etc. You're surely not agreeing with RH that there
>should be no offence of drink driving? I'll have to start checking your
>headers ;-)
It is the hysterical lack of proportion - and overuse of emotive
imagery (see above) - which surrounds the offence to which I was
objecting. Ours is not the first society to use images of happy
smiling children (with or without puppies) to work people up into
irrational reactions.
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
Steve Frazer
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:27:25 +0100, "Steve Frazer"
> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Of course it is. Knowingly driving whilst your driving ability is
> >impaired
> >> >is reckless. That includes driving whilst intoxicated or whilst very
> >tired.
> >> >Recklessness would be enough to show intent in law.
>
> >> Recklessnes is certainly sufficient intent for *some* offences (not
> >> all). But even those offences which accept recklessness as
> >> constituting intent still require an actus - iow they require some
> >> harm to have been done to somebody as a result of said recklessness.
>
> >> Recklessness has never been an offence in its own right: there must be
> >> some resulting harm.
>
>
> Something which was alien to the English legal system until this
> century. Whilst common sense suggests that it isn't a good idea to
> allow people who are drunk (or otherwise impaired) loose in cars, I
> still feel uneasy about laws which are enforced for their own sake.
So you're not against the law, it just makes you uneasy...... Do conspiracy
laws also make you uneasy or would you rather the police wait until the bomb
has gone off before arresting the terrorists. Their bombs also kill very few
people so maybe RH thinks there shouldn't be legislation for this also.
> >In this case it is better
> >to penalise a drink driver for alcohol in his blood stream to deter him
from
> >trying to drive whilst drunk, than to have to explain to parents why
their
> >child won't be coming home or why they can no longer walk.
>
> I suppose the pig-tailed child was carrying a puppy too, which was
> also killed by the nasty driver.
I put that is especially for you Marc, I know you love the sentimental
argument :-)
> >People sometimes
> >need a nudge to act responsibly, hence speed limits, MOT, zig-zags
outside
> >schools, zebra crossings, etc. You're surely not agreeing with RH that
there
> >should be no offence of drink driving? I'll have to start checking your
> >headers ;-)
>
> It is the hysterical lack of proportion - and overuse of emotive
> imagery (see above) - which surrounds the offence to which I was
> objecting. Ours is not the first society to use images of happy
> smiling children (with or without puppies) to work people up into
> irrational reactions.
It is not irrational to have a drink driving limit, what is irrational is to
so lower that limit that it is punishing people who are not impairing their
ability at all. A zero limit would be ludicrous. I think 1-2 pints is about
right as having higher limits for fatties just encourages drinkers to be
fatties.
Marc Living
<steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> >The drink driving law acts in a preventative way.
>> Something which was alien to the English legal system until this
>> century. Whilst common sense suggests that it isn't a good idea to
>> allow people who are drunk (or otherwise impaired) loose in cars, I
>> still feel uneasy about laws which are enforced for their own sake.
>So you're not against the law, it just makes you uneasy
It does.
>...... Do conspiracy
>laws also make you uneasy or would you rather the police wait until the bomb
>has gone off before arresting the terrorists.
Has anybody ever been convicted of conspiring to plant a bomb before
they have actually done it?
(Nor would the police have to wait until the bomb has gone off - they
can be arrested for the attempt.)
>Their bombs also kill very few
>people so maybe RH thinks there shouldn't be legislation for this also.
Conspiracy is an interesting crime. It began life as an invention of
the Court of Star Chamber. After the abolition of that unlamented body
it somehow managed to worm its way into the common law courts.
It was used as a criminal "catch-all" offence, even against people
whose individual actions did not amount to criminal offences -
sometimes in very dubious circumstances - until it was reigned in by
statute during this century*. (And I am not usually one to prefer
statute to the common law.)
AIUI, nowadays, conspiracy charges are mainly limited to those crimes
which are solely conspiracy charges - conspiracy to defraud,
conspiracy to outrage public morals and (topically) conspiracy to
pervert the course of justice - although they are not infrequently
bunged in to top up a more conventional indictment.
(* It also carried a maximum sentence of life, which had the
paradoxical effect that conspiracy to commit a crime could carry a
much higher sentence than the crime itself would.)
>> >In this case it is better
>> >to penalise a drink driver for alcohol in his blood stream to deter him
>from
>> >trying to drive whilst drunk, than to have to explain to parents why
>their
>> >child won't be coming home or why they can no longer walk.
>> I suppose the pig-tailed child was carrying a puppy too, which was
>> also killed by the nasty driver.
>I put that is especially for you Marc, I know you love the sentimental
>argument :-)
Works every time:-)
>> >People sometimes
>> >need a nudge to act responsibly, hence speed limits, MOT, zig-zags
>outside
>> >schools, zebra crossings, etc. You're surely not agreeing with RH that
>there
>> >should be no offence of drink driving? I'll have to start checking your
>> >headers ;-)
>> It is the hysterical lack of proportion - and overuse of emotive
>> imagery (see above) - which surrounds the offence to which I was
>> objecting. Ours is not the first society to use images of happy
>> smiling children (with or without puppies) to work people up into
>> irrational reactions.
>It is not irrational to have a drink driving limit, what is irrational is to
>so lower that limit that it is punishing people who are not impairing their
>ability at all. A zero limit would be ludicrous. I think 1-2 pints is about
>right as having higher limits for fatties just encourages drinkers to be
>fatties.
It is also irrational to turn it from a not particularly serious crime
into a sin.
Robert Henderson
<steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes>news:ClJqlrAJ...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <8qt0ol$ga86o$1...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de>, Steve Frazer
>> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
>> >> >> >That would explain why he thought that there was no possible reason
>> >for a
>> >> >> >woman to lie naked next to a man unless she had consented to sexual
>> >> >> >intercourse with him. I just wish my wife would listen to RH :-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Now let me see, what other reason could their be for a woman doing
>> >that?
>> >> >> To provoke a situation where she may cry rape perhaps? RH
>> >> >
>> >> >To go to sleep on a hot evening? Because she is used to sleeping in
>the
>> >> >nude? Because she wants a massage? Because she wants an intimate
>cuddle?
>> >> >Because she trusts the person she is with? Is your experience so
>limited
>> >> >that you really can only see one reason?
>> >> >
>
>All of the reasons I gave are legitimate. You are a total fool.
>--
>
>"The Only Thing Worse Than IGNORANCE Is Acting On It"
>http://members.xoom.com/steve_frazer/
>
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
Steve Frazer
> In article <8r1p5d$gr5hb$5...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de>, Steve Frazer
> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
> >> >> >> >That would explain why he thought that there was no possible
reason
> >> >for a
> >> >> >> >woman to lie naked next to a man unless she had consented to
sexual
> >> >> >> >intercourse with him. I just wish my wife would listen to RH :-)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Now let me see, what other reason could their be for a woman
doing
> >> >that?
> >> >> >> To provoke a situation where she may cry rape perhaps? RH
> >> >> >
> >> >> >To go to sleep on a hot evening? Because she is used to sleeping in
> >the
> >> >> >nude? Because she wants a massage? Because she wants an intimate
> >cuddle?
> >> >> >Because she trusts the person she is with? Is your experience so
> >limited
> >> >> >that you really can only see one reason?
> >> >> >
> >
> >All of the reasons I gave are legitimate. You are a total fool.
> >
You stated that for a woman to sleep naked with a man would mean she is
consenting to sexual intercourse with him. I gave many reasons why she might
do such a thing without giving that consent. You said that meant I believed
in fairies. You are a fool who clearly has no experience of women and very
little of people.
Steve Frazer
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 14:31:36 +0100, "Steve Frazer"
> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >> >The drink driving law acts in a preventative way.
>
> >> Something which was alien to the English legal system until this
> >> century. Whilst common sense suggests that it isn't a good idea to
> >> allow people who are drunk (or otherwise impaired) loose in cars, I
> >> still feel uneasy about laws which are enforced for their own sake.
>
> >So you're not against the law, it just makes you uneasy
>
> It does.
Presumably you'd be more uneasy if we had no preventative laws.
> >...... Do conspiracy
> >laws also make you uneasy or would you rather the police wait until the
bomb
> >has gone off before arresting the terrorists.
>
> Has anybody ever been convicted of conspiring to plant a bomb before
> they have actually done it?
Plenty of people have been charged with conspiracy. Don't know of any
bombers but doesn't mean their aren't, and doesn't stop it being a good idea
to stop them before they attempt it.
> (Nor would the police have to wait until the bomb has gone off - they
> can be arrested for the attempt.)
>
> >Their bombs also kill very few
> >people so maybe RH thinks there shouldn't be legislation for this also.
>
> Conspiracy is an interesting crime. It began life as an invention of
> the Court of Star Chamber. After the abolition of that unlamented body
> it somehow managed to worm its way into the common law courts.
Common sense really. Why should the police have to wait for a crime to be
committed? Why should they have to wait for an attempt to commit the crime
if they can prove that the crime would have been commited?
Robert Henderson
<steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes>news:9I+1eSAQ...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <8r1p5d$gr5hb$5...@ID-19581.news.cis.dfn.de>, Steve Frazer
>> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> writes
>> >> >> >> >That would explain why he thought that there was no possible
>reason
>> >> >for a
>> >> >> >> >woman to lie naked next to a man unless she had consented to
>sexual
>> >> >> >> >intercourse with him. I just wish my wife would listen to RH :-)
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Now let me see, what other reason could their be for a woman
>doing
>> >> >that?
>> >> >> >> To provoke a situation where she may cry rape perhaps? RH
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >To go to sleep on a hot evening? Because she is used to sleeping in
>> >the
>> >> >> >nude? Because she wants a massage? Because she wants an intimate
>> >cuddle?
>> >> >> >Because she trusts the person she is with? Is your experience so
>> >limited
>> >> >> >that you really can only see one reason?
>> >> >> >
>> >
>> >All of the reasons I gave are legitimate. You are a total fool.
>> >
>> Mr Fraser shows his powers of argument. RH
>
>You stated that for a woman to sleep naked with a man would mean she is
No, I didn't state that. I said that it was a reasonable assumption by
the man. RH
> I gave many reasons why she might
>do such a thing without giving that consent. You said that meant I believed
>in fairies. You are a fool who clearly has no experience of women and very
>little of people.
>--
>
>Steve
>"The Only Thing Worse Than IGNORANCE Is Acting On It"
>http://members.xoom.com/steve_frazer/
>
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
Marc Living
<steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> >Their bombs also kill very few
>> >people so maybe RH thinks there shouldn't be legislation for this also.
>> Conspiracy is an interesting crime. It began life as an invention of
>> the Court of Star Chamber. After the abolition of that unlamented body
>> it somehow managed to worm its way into the common law courts.
>Common sense really. Why should the police have to wait for a crime to be
>committed? Why should they have to wait for an attempt to commit the crime
>if they can prove that the crime would have been commited?
Why should they have to wait for a conspiracy if they can prove that
somebody looked as if they were thinking of conspiring to commit a
crime?
Why even wait that long if they can simply arrest anybody with a
tattoo?
Angus McBastard
>
> Why should they have to wait for a conspiracy if they can prove that
> somebody looked as if they were thinking of conspiring to commit a
> crime?
>
> Why even wait that long if they can simply arrest anybody with a
> tattoo?
>
So far having a tattoo appears only to make make one elegible for
"helping with enquiries"
Angus
Steve Frazer
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 09:57:55 +0100, "Steve Frazer"
> <steve_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Their bombs also kill very few
> >> >people so maybe RH thinks there shouldn't be legislation for this
also.
>
> >> Conspiracy is an interesting crime. It began life as an invention of
> >> the Court of Star Chamber. After the abolition of that unlamented body
> >> it somehow managed to worm its way into the common law courts.
>
> >Common sense really. Why should the police have to wait for a crime to be
> >committed? Why should they have to wait for an attempt to commit the
crime
> >if they can prove that the crime would have been commited?
>
> somebody looked as if they were thinking of conspiring to commit a
> crime?
>
> Why even wait that long if they can simply arrest anybody with a
> tattoo?
That would not be common sense, but would be politicians abusing their
power. I completely disagree with any law that is based on no evidence. I
discussed the theoretical possibility of forcing a General election by
killing off a few Tories when the majority was very slim but would never
have done anything other than discuss the theoretical possibilities. This of
course should never be a crime.
Angus McBastard
>
> Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote in message
> news:ipdetscemruarhbe6...@4ax.com...
> > tattoo?
>
> That would not be common sense, but would be politicians abusing their
> power. I completely disagree with any law that is based on no evidence. I
> discussed the theoretical possibility of forcing a General election by
> killing off a few Tories when the majority was very slim but would never
> have done anything other than discuss the theoretical possibilities. This of
> course should never be a crime.
> --
Lucky you weren't discussing it with your tattoo in plain view, then :-)
Angus
Paul Hyett
this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>Common sense really. Why should the police have to wait for a crime to be
>>committed? Why should they have to wait for an attempt to commit the crime
>>if they can prove that the crime would have been commited?
>
>Why should they have to wait for a conspiracy if they can prove that
>somebody looked as if they were thinking of conspiring to commit a
>crime?
Conspiring to commit conspiracy, you mean? :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England