d wrote:

some sanctamonious do gooder

ITYM, "a concerned citizen who had observed somebody breaking the law".
Would I be a "sanctamonious do gooder" if I reported somebody breaking
in to your house?

Cheers

mark-r

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:02:34 +0100
Mark Robinson wrote:
wrote:

some sanctamonious do gooder

ITYM, "a concerned citizen who had observed somebody breaking the law".

Concerned about what exactly? That the biker could get away with speeding
and he couldn't?

Would I be a "sanctamonious do gooder" if I reported somebody breaking
in to your house?

Please do explain how the motocyclist was effecting or doing any harm
to anyone or any property or business. Though no doubt he deprived the
treasury of some tax , sorry fine, revenue. Oh cry me a river.

B2003

On Jul 30, 1:36*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:02:34 +0100

Mark Robinson wrote:
wrote:

some sanctamonious do gooder

ITYM, "a concerned citizen who had observed somebody breaking the law".

Concerned about what exactly? That the biker could get away with speeding
and he couldn't?

Would I be a "sanctamonious do gooder" if I reported somebody breaking
in to your house?

Please do explain how the motocyclist was effecting or doing any harm
to anyone or any property or business. Though no doubt he deprived the
treasury of some tax , sorry fine, revenue. Oh cry me a river.

B2003

It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

In uk.railway Jeff twisted the electrons to say:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

It's not so much the "picking and choosing" that I object to ... It's
the fact that they chose to break a given law and then whine on about how
unfair it was that they got caught!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

In message
,
Jeff writes
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.
I think it depends on your own common sense. A few weeks ago, it was
mentioned on TV that the government would like to know what laws aught
to be repelled. Now if new laws are being constantly brought in and
old out dated laws aren't repelled, then we'll get to a situation where
you're always in the wrong because of some obscure act of parliament or
other, which you'll fall foul of in the act of trying to conform with
the new law. A bail of hay in a hackney cab, anyone?
--
Clive

In message
Clive wrote:

In message
,
Jeff writes
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.
I think it depends on your own common sense. A few weeks ago, it was
mentioned on TV that the government would like to know what laws aught
to be repelled. Now if new laws are being constantly brought in and
old out dated laws aren't repelled, then we'll get to a situation where
you're always in the wrong because of some obscure act of parliament or
other, which you'll fall foul of in the act of trying to conform with
the new law. A bail of hay in a hackney cab, anyone?

That one went decades ago.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the
letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it
up. There are probably dozens of other absurd laws that plenty of people
ignore because they either bear no relevance to reality or are just plain
daft.

B2003

On Aug 2, 9:49*am, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the
letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it
up. There are probably dozens of other absurd laws that plenty of people
ignore because they either bear no relevance to reality or are just plain
daft.

Well said. The 'breaking any law is serious' argument is a pretty
nerdy one that always seems rather detached from the real world.

On Aug 2, 1:30*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Aug 2, 9:49*am, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the
letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it
up. There are probably dozens of other absurd laws that plenty of people
ignore because they either bear no relevance to reality or are just plain
daft.

Well said. The 'breaking any law is serious' argument is a pretty
nerdy one that always seems rather detached from the real world.

Well which law can I disregard as nerdy? A bit of thieving could be an
attractive way of getting a bit of cash together so lets disregard the
nerdy Theft Act.
It would be interesting to see how you would choose which laws are
nerdy.

In article ,
d wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Are you going to take a similar view to bikes jumping red lights?

If not, what's the difference?

--
Mike Bristow