Reply to: The law is an ass

[Tarquin Farquhar]

No, they don't have to be criminals too to assume that. Just look at how the Inland Revenue conduct themselves with regards to small businesses.

And what are speed cameras, but an implicit assumption that there will be sufficient number of speeders passing to justify their cost.

HTH

You are right, of course. In fact that's one of the factors motivating me to leave the country. I do not trust a government that so mistrusts its citizens that it invents a whole system of number-plate recognition and average speed cameras, just to stop people zooming up to 60mph in between speed cameras on half-empty motorways at night with 3 lanes open but just the emergency verge coned off against some possible future roadworks. As it people can't drive at 70 if there are cones by the side of the road.

It is the nanny turned bully IMHO, what most gets them is that they posted 50mph signs and then were not obeyed. That will not be tolerated.

[threaded]

I do (i.e. not speed, cross where appropriate, never claim what's not justified, pay fair tax, etc). And I'm sick of ignorant selfish-minded criminals assuming that because they commit some or all of those crimes, I must do too, or else I'm a prat.

No, they don't have to be criminals too to assume that. Just look at how the Inland Revenue conduct themselves with regards to small businesses.

And what are speed cameras, but an implicit assumption that there will be sufficient number of speeders passing to justify their cost.

HTH

[Drewster]

Not another one claiming they never speed or fiddle their expenses.

Presumably

...... a generalised question, not aimed at any one individual....

[Tarquin Farquhar]

I take it you never speed. Always cross the road where appropriate. Never accidentally claim for something that isn't 100% work related. Pair your fair rate of tax. etc. etc. etc..

I do (i.e. not speed, cross where appropriate, never claim what's not justified, pay fair tax, etc). And I'm sick of ignorant selfish-minded criminals assuming that because they commit some or all of those crimes, I must do too, or else I'm a prat.

[threaded]

ftfy

Not another one claiming they never speed or fiddle their expenses.

[Drewster]

What I did was directly respond to your comment (even going as far as quoting you) obviously when you pulled me up on it I attempted to bluster and bultulip my way out of it. Apologies for being an *rse

ftfy

[threaded]

My comment was made to suggest that you may have made a mistake in accusing someone of Fraud and Speeding on a public forum!

What I meant was a generalised question, not aimed at any one individual. Apologies if you took it that way.

[EternalOptimist]

no one has picked up on the fact that

a) if the intruder had run faster, he would not have been batted. so its his fault


b) when he was caught and batted he was in someones garden. So for the second time that night he was trespassing. A serial intruder eh, and the battees were also protecting this second house from invasion. medals all round

[Churchill]

So you're justification is that because it is difficult to prove, you didn't do it.

My comment was made to suggest that you may have made a mistake in accusing someone of Fraud and Speeding on a public forum!

[threaded]

You say I break the law, every day. Prove it.

So you're justification is that because it is difficult to prove, you didn't do it.

[Churchill]

You don't even know, or you don't care?

I take it you never speed. Always cross the road where appropriate. Never accidentally claim for something that isn't 100% work related. Pair your fair rate of tax. etc. etc. etc..

You say I break the law, every day. Prove it.

[threaded]

How so?

You don't even know, or you don't care?

I take it you never speed. Always cross the road where appropriate. Never accidentally claim for something that isn't 100% work related. Pair your fair rate of tax. etc. etc. etc..

[Churchill]

You break the law too, everyday.

But it is generally allowed to slide.

How so?

[RichardCranium]

The more I think about it, the more I find the "Tied their hands behind their backs and made them crawl from room to room" part of the story less and less credible. It's just not plausible. I'm fairly sure they've made that bit up as a excuse for dishing out the beating. Not having those who supposedly did it available to give their side of the story makes it even more suspicious.

And the bit about having two mates conveniently to hand - who still haven't been identified - is, at best, dubious.


This story stinks of fish, and the one-sided way it is being reported in the media makes matters even worse.

We're having the wool pulled over our eyes as to what was actually said in court and being emotionally manipulated by the rhetorical wording of the so-called "news" stories.

And the strongest evidence I have for that is the arguments on CUK: normally we are a groupthink lot because we're a narrow societal cross-section of relatively intelligent people with reasoning people. When we disagree it is because we do not have sufficient information to form a reasoned opinion. Hence the rows about this case, global warming, the economy and whether AtW is going to take over Google.


I think we would all agree that if you were woken in the night by an intruder in the bedroom and you attacked them with bedside lamp and killed them, that you should walk away free.

I think we would all agree that if you go out with a bunch of mates and look for someone to cripple for life, that you ought to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.

What the media has done is muddy the story with evocative wording instead of details specifically to promote a reaction and "sell more papers". The truth is of little interest to them and it is not in their interests to tell the truth to us. And thus do they spread discord, unhappiness and confusion as to our rights and responsibilities.

The UK media is tulip.

[threaded]

He broke the law.

You break the law too, everyday.

But it is generally allowed to slide.