Give him a medal

Mark <[email protected]> wrote:

> >More than 20 motorists in Hampshire have fallen victim to a mystery
> >vigilante who appears to target drivers spotted using mobile phones.
> >
> >All the car owners have found their tyres have been slashed and, in many
> >cases, a note on their windscreens.

> Read the story you pratt this nutter is picking on people at random.
> One victim hasnt even got a phone
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/4791439.stm

So she says. Still, it doesn't matter. Vigilantes are dangerous, however
satisfying their actions might be. A vigilante will slash the wrong
person's type, or be mistaken about what they saw, or with deadly
consequences, or without knowing about the circumstances, and be just as
satisfied about their actions as if they were absolutely right, and with
no chance of learning that they were mistaken.

Daniele

---

› See More: Give him a medal

Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

>>> The situation was that a car towing a tatty old camping trailer was
>>> tailgating me in the middle lane of a motorway , flashing his
>>> lights for me to get out of the way
>>>
>>> I was solo and doing a BIT more than 70

>> Perhaps he wanted you to move over because trailers aren't allowed in
>> the third lane.

> Nor are they allowed to exceed 60mph.

How is the speed he chooses to drive at inconveniencing you?

OTOH, your incorrect use of lanes IS inconveniencing him.

Seems to me that yours is the greater offence.

Not, of course, that that excuses him playing pushy-shovey.

"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying :
>
>>>> The situation was that a car towing a tatty old camping trailer was
>>>> tailgating me in the middle lane of a motorway , flashing his
>>>> lights for me to get out of the way
>>>>
>>>> I was solo and doing a BIT more than 70
>
>>> Perhaps he wanted you to move over because trailers aren't allowed in
>>> the third lane.
>
>> Nor are they allowed to exceed 60mph.
>
> How is the speed he chooses to drive at inconveniencing you?
>
> OTOH, your incorrect use of lanes IS inconveniencing him.
>
> Seems to me that yours is the greater offence.
>
> Not, of course, that that excuses him playing pushy-shovey.

A minor attribution problem there Adrian.

Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

>>>>> The situation was that a car towing a tatty old camping trailer
>>>>> was tailgating me in the middle lane of a motorway , flashing
>>>>> his lights for me to get out of the way
>>>>>
>>>>> I was solo and doing a BIT more than 70

>>>> Perhaps he wanted you to move over because trailers aren't allowed
>>>> in the third lane.

>>> Nor are they allowed to exceed 60mph.

>> How is the speed he chooses to drive at inconveniencing you?
>>
>> OTOH, your incorrect use of lanes IS inconveniencing him.
>>
>> Seems to me that yours is the greater offence.
>>
>> Not, of course, that that excuses him playing pushy-shovey.

> A minor attribution problem there Adrian.

Ooops. <hangs head>

Get outa the fekin way then you knob head, you would rather him make a silly
manoeuvre than to let him pass. You are the tit here putting your own life
in danger because you don't like the fact he wants to go faster than you.




"DieSea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "burt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Tim S Kemp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Dave M <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> All the car owners have found their tyres have been slashed and, in
>>>> many cases, a note on their windscreens.
>>>
>>> A medal? For criminal damage?
>>
>> If I find out where the piece of s**t who came within an inch of killing
>> me on my journey home tonight lives, he won't just be worried about
>> criminal damage - he'll need major surgery. BMW, green, north Bristol,
>> and talking on a mobile phone. 17:10, N914 YOG, young, black driver. Oh
>> dear, have I accidentally published his details? What a shame.
>>
>> I did what you're supposed to do and reported it to the police. Guess
>> what? nothing will happen according to the officer I reported it to. Is
>> it any wonder that people take the law into their own hands? If
>> following the law means that criminals who threaten my life will never be
>> convicted, then maybe it's time for direct action.
>>
>
> Talking to a traffic cop that is in a group I get together with on a
> rgular basis
>
> I told him of an experience of mine recently and asked what should be done
>
> The situation was that a car towing a tatty old camping trailer was
> tailgating me in the middle lane of a motorway , flashing his lights for
> me to get out of the way
>
> I was solo and doing a BIT more than 70
>
> He eventfully came up on the inside and pushed me out into the outside
> lane
>
> Would the cops do anything , not unless you had to independent witness's
>
> Ohhh well
>
> DieSea
>
>
>

Is that the same sort of fine you should get for middle lane hogging. Who
was the most dangerous?



"DieSea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jim GM4DHJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/4791439.stm
>>
>> Funny... The Police around here don't give a toss about vandalism or
>> property damage......
>>
>
> Down here the police don't give a toss about mobile 'phone users
>
> IMHO it should be an instant £1000 fine and 8 penalty points
>
> DieSea
>

> Is that the same sort of fine you should get for middle lane hogging. Who
> was the most dangerous?

I'm hoping those new tailgating cameras (no fines yet, just your reg printed
on the screen) will be sufficiently intelligent to stick a "move over you
bastard" message to the MLOC.

Christian.

"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave M wrote:
>
> >More than 20 motorists in Hampshire have fallen victim to a mystery
> >vigilante who appears to target drivers spotted using mobile phones.
> >
> >All the car owners have found their tyres have been slashed and, in many
> >cases, a note on their windscreens.
> >
> >The sinister message, made from newspaper cuttings, says the driver was
> >seen using a phone.
> >
> >Hampshire Police are investigating the incidents in Gosport,
> >Lee-on-the-Solent and Stubbington.
>
> Read the story you pratt this nutter is picking on people at random.
> One victim hasnt even got a phone
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/4791439.stm

But was she using one? If not, why would she say

"I think it must be (someone following me home) as that's the only way they
would find out where you live."

Following her home from where? From where she used (someone else's) mobile
while driving? Otherwise why not assume it's a random attack on a parked
car?

PM wrote:
> "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Dave M wrote:
>>
>>
>>>More than 20 motorists in Hampshire have fallen victim to a mystery
>>>vigilante who appears to target drivers spotted using mobile phones.
>>>
>>>All the car owners have found their tyres have been slashed and, in many
>>>cases, a note on their windscreens.
>>>
>>>The sinister message, made from newspaper cuttings, says the driver was
>>>seen using a phone.
>>>
>>>Hampshire Police are investigating the incidents in Gosport,
>>>Lee-on-the-Solent and Stubbington.
>>
>>Read the story you pratt this nutter is picking on people at random.
>>One victim hasnt even got a phone
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/4791439.stm
>
>
> But was she using one? If not, why would she say
>
> "I think it must be (someone following me home) as that's the only way they
> would find out where you live."
>
> Following her home from where? From where she used (someone else's) mobile
> while driving? Otherwise why not assume it's a random attack on a parked
> car?

The part: "(following me home)" looks like an context insertion by the
writer of the article, rather than necessarily being what the victim said,
otherwise it could simply have been rendered as:

"I think it must be someone who followed me home as that's the only way
they would find out where I live" (or words to exactly the same effect)
without the need for brackets.

In article <[email protected]>, burt
says...

> If I find out where the piece of s**t who came within an inch of killing me
> on my journey home tonight lives, he won't just be worried about criminal
> damage - he'll need major surgery.

Oh do **** off you spineless hypocrite.

Inch of killing you...what utter bollocks.


--
Conor

"No trilogy should have more than four books" - Arthur C. Clarke

DieSea wrote:
> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:30:59 +0100, "DieSea"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The situation was that a car towing a tatty old camping trailer was
>>>> tailgating me in the middle lane of a motorway , flashing his
>>>> lights for me to get out of the way
>>>>
>>>> I was solo and doing a BIT more than 70
>>>
>>> Perhaps he wanted you to move over because trailers aren't allowed
>>> in the third lane.
>>
>> Nor are they allowed to exceed 60mph.
>>
>>> If he was able to drive up on your nearside, you can't have been
>>> overtaking, so you were breaking the law.
>>
>> How does one tailgate when in a different lane?
>>
>
> He was in the same lane to start off with
>
> Then he tied to over take me on the inside lane
>
> nuff said

Which surely means that you where driving down lane 2 with nothing in lane
1 - is this correct?

In article <[email protected]>, DieSea says...

>
> He was in the same lane to start off with
>
> Then he tied to over take me on the inside lane
>
> nuff said
>
Yep. You can't drive for ****. If he tried to undertake you in the
inside lane, it was obviously clear AND YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN IT IN
THE FIRST PLACE.

People like you are ****s of the highest order.

--
Conor

"No trilogy should have more than four books" - Arthur C. Clarke

In article <[email protected]>, DieSea says...

> The only time I tailgate is when I'm in a queue and doing 5 miles an hour then its
> 10 feet behind.
>
Yet you seem to think you're a good driver despite being a fully paid
up member of the Middle Lane Owners Club.


--
Conor

"No trilogy should have more than four books" - Arthur C. Clarke

In article <1hk4pse.1glnztj1b7prgfN%[email protected]>, SteveH
says...

> I think you'll find that *most* motorcyclists treat NSL signs as a 'GLF'
> [1] sign, but will happily obey 30/40/50 mph limits.
>
My observation too although I've seen many obeying the NSL lately which
has come as quite a shock. Maybe there's a fair few that are 3 points
from a ban.




--
Conor

"No trilogy should have more than four books" - Arthur C. Clarke

In article <%[email protected]>, Steve
says...

> Police dont use 2 way radios and so are covered by the regulations. 2-way
> radios are so defined by the name, they send and recieve data/voice between
> 2 radios, ie the ones you buy for your kids while out camping.
>
ROFLMAO...clueless.


--
Conor

"No trilogy should have more than four books" - Arthur C. Clarke