Huguenot

Gen17, that's terrific work. I truly hope these b@stards get nailed. I also hope that the council can show some teeth. This is precisely the kind of issue that social structures are there to protect against. We need success in this situation to give respectability to the council's decisions in more contentious areas.

I don't know about you Piersy, but having looked at those pics of the Canary Islands on your link in the other other thread, I've gone totally off heavily photoshopped wankoramas.

Aha, the old 'too far away to bother' line. I need hardly add that the 7/7 bombers were educated on the subcontinent, and that you can leave India after you've gone to bed and arrive in the UK before you wake up. The UK invests around GBP 300m a year of your tax money in India, quite sensibly - given that it represents one sixth of the world's population (1.1 billion citizens). The UK doesn't make anything itself any more (we don't have any resources) so we are utterly reliant on our international relations to keep the bread on your table. Our trade with India last year was US$9.8 billion, and we are the world's second largest Indian trading partner. Tragically, 'who gives a shit?' today turns to 'why is there no food?' tomorrow, and 'why are we going to war?' the day after.

Oh, Karter, I was posting to myself on this forum before you found a keyboard for your forehead. And now you throw it back in my face you ungrateful child ;-) Oakhurst Grove and Crawthew Road.

Singapore

Very quiet on here. Very important over the world. I hope that peeps appreciate (Azul) that conflict ain't so funny.

Jeez, you kids. DaveR is my hero. A good, well reasoned arument, and a logic deadstop. What do you give me? Search terms?? C'mon, you can do better than that. I'm a cyclist, in a casual way. There's plenty of 'in's - how about "why should I care?".

Smashing name Ralphation :)

For sure, DaveR, and it is precisely this discretion that is being applied in this situation. The junction where the cyclists were targeted is an accident blackspot, carrying wreaths for the victims twice or more a year. It's busy with cars, buses, lorries, cyclists and pedestrians throughout the day, and its role as a nexus for the three villages makes it a hotbed of petty infractions and unpredictable actions with fatal consequences. That includes bikes on pavements. Your view on the cost of policing petty transgressions makes the point entirely. I don't view this issue as one of legislation and policing, but one of personal responsibility. I don't believe that we should educate the next generation that laws are there for when it suits us, or when we might get caught. Instead we should be demonstrating why and how laws are created, how to go about addressing legal issues in a democratic society, and the benefits of a stable and predictable relationship with our neighbours. I don't believe in slagging of PCSOs and others we employ to help us.

Chav - I was always under the impression that property was theft for you, is that a support network with the opposition that you're forging? A strange alliance in these strange days. Once again DaveR, for supporting the cause, many thanks. I should add that it is the very nature of road traffic accidents that those involved thought that their actions weren't threatening anyone. 3,000 dead last year at the hands of those who erroneously decided there was no evidence of endangerment. That's why we legislate to minimise risk, and to ensure confidence that we're all playing from the same rulebook. Saves lives. Im aware that some of us struggle to empathise with the human cost, so in terms we may be more familar with, road traffic accidents have an estimated cost to the economy of GBP 8bn annually (the Audit Commission). The campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan cost around GBP 1bn annually. Think what wonderful schools and hospitals we could have if we didn't cycle on the blinkin' pavement! Hence those who support upholding road safety legislation are demonstrating the most enlightened self interest. It will make you rich, rich I tell you! ... and for those who don't, you'll be the poorer for it ;-)

It's moral relativity if you reckon that disadvantaging someone else for personal gain is a question of perspective. As you well know I was using zero tolerance as an example of targeting low level behaviours to achieve more substantial purpose. I'm pleased to see both that you agree with me, and have employed such a quality debating strategy to imply that you don't. I'm also impressed that you recognise that strategies of fining cyclists for illegal and/or risky behviour pays dividends. I remain in your debt for sourcing your own case study. ;-) As for where the line lies, tragically I have no idea. However, secretly in our heart of hearts, we know when we're doing it don't we? The more we know it, the louder we bray our denials. However, attacking 'whinging' pedestrians (and the legal system that protects them) for being endangered by the use of vehicles on the pavement is definitely on the wrong side of it.

Is is assault, and you should report it even though it didn't cause injury. This type of behaviour escalates, and the previous reporting will often be useful in identifying the culprit of more serious offences.

Ah, the old 'everything is relative so nothing is wrong' argument. I don't suffer from such moral flexibility I'm afraid. Anything that deliberately puts another person at a disadavantage for personal gain falls into my naughty naughty book. There are degrees of malfeasance of course, but screwing with the global ecology because you can't be bothered to walk to the newsagent is pretty stinky. Logically you can only argue otherwise either by elevating your own petty indulgences over the impact on third parties, or by supporting a reductionist approach to the impact your actions have. The former is known as being a selfish b@stard, to embrace the latter you'd need to be stupid or in denial. Famous case studies of Zero-Tolerance can be found in examples such as New York. From 1993 to 1997 (and subsequent to the ZT policy) the number of felony complaints in New York City dropped by 44.3 percent: a 60.2 percent drop in murders and nonnegligent homicides, a 12.4 percent drop in forcible rape, a 48.4 percent drop in robbery, and a 45.7 drop in burglary. Zero tolerance has also been successfully applied in schools and work-places and you'll find plenty of other case studies. "In the end, those kids who receive less than firm, fair, and consistent discipline end up being taught that there are no consequences for inappropriate --- and sometimes illegal --- behavior" I fully expect someone to come up with a ridiculous and unworkable example of zero-tolerance to prove that it doesn't work. That's part of the weasely thing ;-) Zero tolerance wouldn't even need to be discussed if we took responsibility for our own actions.

Technically we're all in Camberwell - Camberwell Friern to be precise. There have only been occasional links with Peckham through marriage. You've always needed an armed guard to go there ;-)

Lol Kilmore, I don't think it's supposed to be a benefit to the buses - I think it's been proven a benefit to road-safety. Sort of Kil-less.... ...I 'll get my coat. You can check out hundreds of test results cited here, or just take the results of their own 5 year controlled test - a 50% reduction in child injuries. There are those who believe that the death of children on our streets is not too high a price to pay if we can reduce wear and tear, and provide smoother journeys at higher speeds. I'm just not one of them ;-)

No Quids, you've just argued yourself into a logical cul-de-sac, that's all. The liberal aesthetic doesn't respond well to extremist positions, preferring freedom of speech to incitement of violence. When faced with members of our community who want to legislate against people based on their skin colour, you don't give them a platform with social authority. They can still be typists, or just general losers. Whichever. Do typists still exist? Physics has the same problem as liberalism, with universal laws getting chucked at the window at quantum level. ;-) They don't call me a pseud for nothing.

Travertine limestone apparently Dev. And the pyramids were made by aliens. Regardless, are we suggesting that because it was made of concrete it should be pulled down? Had your original assumption on the Colosseum been right, are we suggesting that should also be pulled down? In fact, goddamn it, should we pull down St. Paul's cathedral on the grounds that we could have built it quicker and more efficiently with glass and plastic?

Keeflet is an excellent shout. Keef will no doubt hate it for the same reason I hate my wife calling me cute when I'm confused. I wouldn't watch it Tillie because it's so dull you'll start experimenting on your cornea with a fork. It felt like someone saying 'mung' to me a thousand times. Poisoning young lady's minds about boys requires no such motivation. This craven pursuit is the sport of kings.

Very very funny

Ah Gemma, a loving heart indeed. I fear a collection will not deliver the solution you seek. I'd suspect that the target of your affections would crave medium term security, opportunity and respect. From a professional perspective he needs to ensure that he's legal, registered and on minimum wage. If he has met immigration criteria he'll also be able to talk to the relevant institutions about accommodation support. Unfortunately if you're simply distraught about the hand that life has dealt him, and hope to make him an object of charity, then he is as much a stranger as the 5 billion people on the planet who share his struggles. If you'd like to help those guys, then talk to NGOs about career opportunities!

A saunter of EDilutions

It's probably me DaveR, but I find your objections weasely. It's not about the law, it's about your responsibilities. Chuntering on about about the PCSOs is offering dinner party support to twonks who will commit escalating crimes in your name. The point about your niggling is that it doesn't make anyone want to help you. The PCSOs (and by extension the police) are pursuing strategies that have been proven in numerous case studies to cut crime, even if you're not informed enough to be aware of it. Instead your position degrades public service and lowers the application rate from high quality recruits. You'll end up with the services that you deserve, and they won't be good.

Reminded me of the Ipcress Files. That bloke for the first 5 minutes is interminable. I was so exasperated I wanted to cook up an elaborate plot to go to war with him. Bad news eh Tillie - it suggest he's another one of the 'believers' who doesn't realise they're swapping one religion for another ;-)

The thing that gets my goat on the subject is that all the people complaining talk about their 'rights' to do whatever the hell they please never talk about their responsibilities to other people. They talk about conceptual 'clubs' thay they belong to (for example fellow motorists), and use this as a show of strength to support their often niggly selfish pursuits. I can't make up my mind whether their mind-boggling short termism is because they're so self-obsessed that they think the rest of the world is a plaything for their indulgences, or whether in fact they're so stupid they struggle to put on their trousers the right way round. The real people pissing you off aren't the people who are trying to develop a more effective long term society, they're the selfish prats in your club. If you recognise yourself, then this is aimed at you: If you dont' ride on the pavement, don't jump red lights, don't let your dogs crap where children play, don't drop litter, don't drive your car just because you can, and don't attack the people trying to uphold the laws we create.... you'll be happier! Consider instead restricting the motorists putting your life in danger and the criminals who disrupt our neighborhoods. But you probably won't will you, you'll probably make up all sorts of snivelling excuses why not? It's not because you're clever, it's because you're a coward ;-)

Well that's the crux quids. Being a policeman involves the assumption that all are equal in the eyes of the law. Piersy talked about 'repatriation' as a BNP strategy (not strictly correct, as 'send them home' for the majority of UK coloured people involves them staying in the UK). What the BNP discuss is resettlement of people of ethnic origin. That means skin colour. That entails discrimination against people based on the colour of their skin, and isn't compatible with either equality or policing.