In article , Joe Patrick
writes
Can I have some of what you're drinking :-)

I dont think its drink - its probably what those kids were smoking on my
train

Have patience, you'll probably be able to get it on the NHS before too
long! (If Radio 4 this morning is to be believed.)

(Thinks: I wonder if it would sort out my rheumatic shoulder ... )
--
Sue

http://www.gresley.org.uk/overhaul.htm - updated 24 Feb 2003
OO and O gauge models from Sir Nigel Gresley Loco Trust:-
http://www.gresley.org.uk/hbmodels.htm - updated for 2003

In message , John
Mullen writes
I would welcome the thoughts of other posters

I think if people want to talk about Tony Martin on a transport
newsgroup then that's up to them.
The people who are getting upset over this should
a)Find something more important to worry about.
b) Ignore all the messages on this subject.

Because to be honest. The people who are moaning about it. And are
sprouting up rubbish about the right thing to do on newsgroups. And how
Tony Martin has nothing to do with the newsgroup. Are coming over as a
bit sad and pompous.
If no-one had said anything the debate would have gone on for a bit. A
few messages here and there. Then died out. Instead its going on and a
whole debate about whether it should be on here or not has appeared. And
I bet the posts for that outnumber the posts of the original subject as
well as the Tony Martin subject.

--
CJG

Once upon a time, Roland Perry spake thus:
In article , Joe Patrick
writes
Surely this thread should get an award for the Most different subjects
talked about.

Not until someone mentions Hitler oops.

Or the S******** R****** hidden in W***h*** T****l.

Oops!
--
- Jack.
http://underworld.enchantress.org.uk http://www.railway.stormshadow.co.uk
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk
http://www.tabbyvans.co.uk -- For 'purrfect' caravan holidays!

Proper justice includes the extraction of fair vengeance from the
wrongdoer. Those who commit crime for gain should have fewer rights
than those who don't, or who only do so to protect themselves and their
property from criminals.

I don't aim to defend current levels of punishment as right or wrong.

I would go so far as to say that those committing crime for gain should have
fewer rights.

(For example, if the lad hit by Tony Martin wins his compensation case, a
large chunk of his compensation will likely be taken away for contributory
negligence).

Something which hits me quite hard at the moment is having to keep property
safe, even for those who break in and take equipment from locked cupboards -
at the moment I can be sued for any injury to them, particularly if they are
young.

But my point is that use of violence can only be justified where there is a
proportionate risk to the attacker. So shooting people dead just because
you saw them in your house is just not good enough, ever. The Daily Mail
attitude (and yes I am quoting their name, whether or not you read them,
because they have done a lot of damage by using this exact method) of
engendering limitless sympathy for someone who has suffered x or y crime,
and then encouraging vigilante attacks on said criminals with any amount of
punishment justified, has the potential to do a great deal of damage to our
country.

Especially as only the 'popular' crimes are dealt with. The 'ugly' crimes
that are so much more frequent, and do so much more damage, but which so
many more Daily Mail readers are involved in, are quietly brushed under the
carpet. So assaults are only covered in this way when they are committed by
'someone else' - asylum seekers, etc, never white lads or girls on a night
out. Etc, etc. Killing on the roads is encouraged, as being macho to stand
upto authority by drinking a few and then driving at 100mph on the way home.

Richard

Surely this thread should get an award for the Most different subjects
talked about.

Well, I was talking about flashmobbing.

Darren started talking about Tony Martin and I started by Talking about
Flashmobbing!
--
To reply direct, Remove NOSPAM and Replace with 21fun
For the latest News, Information and Photos check out
http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk

I just *knew* you'd manage to get round to raving on about speeding
again somewhere in that message.

Any valid point you might have once made about speeding related deaths
has long been subsumed under the relentless stream of obsessive
rantings you post at every given opportunity. It's very very boring
(apart from being mostly arrant ********)

Aah, Mr Stimpy again. This is your third, 'oh what a surprise he's back to
speeding' today isn't it?

Again with no evidence but plenty of insults, not least to the 30000
families this year newly having to deal with bereavement or a life caring
for a seriously injured relative, being dismissed as 'boring'. Perhaps to
the arrogant drivers who put these families through this kind of trauma, it
is all boring, but not to the families involved or anyone who actually opens
their mind and considers the situation.

But best of all, what are arrant ********? Is that a medical term?

Richard

"Richard" wrote in message
...
I just *knew* you'd manage to get round to raving on about
speeding
again somewhere in that message.

Any valid point you might have once made about speeding related
deaths
has long been subsumed under the relentless stream of obsessive
rantings you post at every given opportunity. It's very very
boring
(apart from being mostly arrant ********)

Aah, Mr Stimpy again. This is your third, 'oh what a surprise he's
back to
speeding' today isn't it?

Er... No. It's the first time I've posted the above.


Again with no evidence but plenty of insults, not least to the 30000
families this year newly having to deal with bereavement or a life
caring
for a seriously injured relative, being dismissed as 'boring'.

Sorry - where did I say the process of breavement is boring. I said
your relentless ramblings on this subject were boring. I've never
used my killfile before and I don't want to start now because you post
some good stuff but this whole speeding malarkey is getting a little
tedious.

Perhaps to
the arrogant drivers who put these families through this kind of
trauma, it
is all boring, but not to the families involved or anyone who
actually opens
their mind and considers the situation.

Yeah yeah yeah whatever

"Richard" writes:
Aah, Mr Stimpy again. This is your third, 'oh what a surprise he's back to
speeding' today isn't it?

Again with no evidence but plenty of insults, not least to the 30000
families this year newly having to deal with bereavement or a life caring
for a seriously injured relative, being dismissed as 'boring'. Perhaps to

Assuming that you are referring to those who have been killed or
seriously injured on the roads in the last year, or will likely be so
next year, the true figure is about 3500 individuals annually. This
doesn't come from the Daily Mail, but from officially published
statistics presumably collected by the police, emergency services and
hospitals.

So where does your figure of 30,000 come from? You call it "families
affected", and it's possible that one KSI may "affect" more than one
family so multiplying the number, but OTOH an accident affecting more
than one family member would lower it.

In the words you don't seem to understand, it is most definitely
"arrant ********". Unless of course you would like to provide an
authorative source for it - you are not such a source, and neither is
your local paper.

--
Jonathan Marten, SCM Team Engineer VSP Bracknell, UK
Sun Microsystems

"Progress is not expedited by frequent requests for progress reports"

"Richard" writes:
out. Etc, etc. Killing on the roads is encouraged, as being macho to stand
upto authority by drinking a few and then driving at 100mph on the way home.

Time to put your money where your big mouth is. The Mail online can
be found at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/; please post a link to any
story there which encourages killing on the roads, or drinking and
driving combined. You can also find newsgroup archives at Google; try
to find any posting in what you would consider a "pro-motorist"
newsgroup (uk.rec.driving and uk.transport would be good places to
start) which also attempts to justify or encourage such behaviour, or
suggests that perpetrators should go unpunished. Anything you can
find to back up your rantings will be most welcome.

--
Jonathan Marten, SCM Team Engineer VSP Bracknell, UK
Sun Microsystems

"Progress is not expedited by frequent requests for progress reports"

Again with no evidence but plenty of insults, not least to the 30000
families this year newly having to deal with bereavement or a life
caring
for a seriously injured relative, being dismissed as 'boring'. Perhaps
to

Assuming that you are referring to those who have been killed or
seriously injured on the roads in the last year, or will likely be so
next year, the true figure is about 3500 individuals annually. This
doesn't come from the Daily Mail, but from officially published
statistics presumably collected by the police, emergency services and
hospitals.

So where does your figure of 30,000 come from? You call it "families
affected", and it's possible that one KSI may "affect" more than one
family so multiplying the number, but OTOH an accident affecting more
than one family member would lower it.

Will the Office for National Statistics do?

"News Release 2002/0314:
13 June 2002
ROAD CASUALTIES DOWN IN 2001, BUT ROAD DEATHS UP BY 1% (TR-013)
Provisional figures published today show that there were 313,046 road
casualties in Great Britain in 2001, 2 per cent fewer than in 2000. 40,537
people were killed or seriously injured in 2001, 2 per cent below the 2000
figure.

3,443 people were killed, 1 per cent more than in 2000, 37,094 were
seriously injured (down 3 per cent on 2000) and 272,509 were slightly
injured (2 per cent lower than in 2000). Road traffic levels were an
estimated 1 per cent higher than in 2000 and consequently, the all casualty
rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres was 3 per cent lower than in 2000. "

I have posted similar research before, so if you don't believe ONS there are
other references.



Richard