Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.

"A nurse was killed in front of her young son by a serial joyrider who
weeks earlier had walked free despite pleading guilty to another hit-
and-run crash.

Tina Boucher, 38, a mother of four, died instantly in the smash while
two other passengers suffered horrendous injuries.

Her six-year-old son Martin, who miraculously escaped nearly unharmed,
sat in his booster seat sobbing 'Mummy, Mummy' as the driver and his
friends jumped out of the other car and ran off.

Police later said the carnage resembled the aftermath of a car
bomb..."

Interesting. Shouldn't this qualify as 'terrorism' then?

More:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026054/Serial-joyrider-kills-mother-crash-just-months-courts-let-walk-free.html

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug wrote:
> Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.

Still gloating over other people's tragedies?

<snipped>

> Interesting. Shouldn't this qualify as 'terrorism' then?
>
What political objective was this car thief pursuing?

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:da35a529-d33d-4bb8-a828-22c70b68b263@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.

Ooh, look, another "infestation" of this newsgroup from, you guessed it, 
Duhg.

Doug wrote:
> Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
> 
> "A nurse was killed in front of her young son by a serial joyrider who
> weeks earlier had walked free despite pleading guilty to another hit-
> and-run crash.
> 
> Tina Boucher, 38, a mother of four, died instantly in the smash while
> two other passengers suffered horrendous injuries.
> 
> Her six-year-old son Martin, who miraculously escaped nearly unharmed,
> sat in his booster seat sobbing 'Mummy, Mummy' as the driver and his
> friends jumped out of the other car and ran off.
> 
> Police later said the carnage resembled the aftermath of a car
> bomb..."
> 
> Interesting. Shouldn't this qualify as 'terrorism' then?
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026054/Serial-joyrider-kills-mother-crash-just-months-courts-let-walk-free.html
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Even without looking at the details of which I am passing no comment, to 
answer your question "no it should not qualify as terrorism"

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug wrote:
> Another killer terrorist motorist

They're not motorists Doug, they're joyriding, criminal scum. But you've 
been told this before, telling you again won't make any difference to 
your fuckwittedness I fear.

-- 
Abo

On 13 Jun, 07:40, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>
> Still gloating over other people's tragedies?
>
> <snipped>
>
> > Interesting. Shouldn't this qualify as 'terrorism' then?
>
> What political objective was this car thief pursuing?

SafeSpeed? Perhaps his "rights", his "freedom"? More to the point, how
can these murderous fascists be able to run away from these
collisions? I do wish that safety features could be turned off
remotely, or automatically when illegal speed is being used. I know,
I'm just a dreamer.

On 13 Jun, 07:12, Doug  wrote:
> Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.

He got a longer sentence than the average one handed down for
manslaughter.  Perhaps you could explain how that qualifies as
"preferential treatment" in GollumWorld.

On 13 Jun, 09:12, BrianW  wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 07:12, Doug  wrote:
>
> > Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>
> He got a longer sentence than the average one handed down for
> manslaughter.  Perhaps you could explain how that qualifies as
> "preferential treatment" in GollumWorld.

Doug probably means that the "joy"-rider had got off too lightly two
months before, and that his punishment had not been enforced:-
"Two months before the crash which killed Mrs Boucher, he had lost
control of a stolen car and ploughed into a parked vehicle. He was
banned from driving and given a community order - but failed to carry
out a single hour of it. ...

Police discovered he had three previous convictions for joyriding and
served a five-year ASBO for bringing misery to his neighbourhood, but
had never been jailed."

Police discovered?

On 13 Jun, 09:22, Squashme  wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 09:12, BrianW  wrote:
>
> > On 13 Jun, 07:12, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>
> > He got a longer sentence than the average one handed down for
> > manslaughter.  Perhaps you could explain how that qualifies as
> > "preferential treatment" in GollumWorld.
>
> Doug probably means that the "joy"-rider had got off too lightly two
> months before, and that his punishment had not been enforced:-
> "Two months before the crash which killed Mrs Boucher, he had lost
> control of a stolen car and ploughed into a parked vehicle. He was
> banned from driving and given a community order - but failed to carry
> out a single hour of it. ...

If so, Doug is right, but that is a reflection on the entire criminal
justice system, rather than a sign that motorists are treated too
lightly.  Those thugs who kicked a goth to death (and almost did the
same to her boyfriend) in Bacup recently had already been convicted of
a similar (but non-fatal) attack, for which they received ... six-
month community sentences.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/28/ukcrime

Kicking and stamping on someone, or nicking a car and ploughing into a
parked vehicle.  Which is more serious?  Hmmm, tough one.

So, contrary to what Gollum says, had the piece of shit in this case
killed Mrs Boucher by other (non-intentional) means, and had he done
similar things in the past, he would probably have been punished in
exactly the same way.

On 13 Jun, 07:40, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>
> Still gloating over other people's tragedies?
>
> <snipped>
>
> > Interesting. Shouldn't this qualify as 'terrorism' then?
>
> What political objective was this car thief pursuing?
>
The right to drive regardless of the circumstances.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 13 Jun, 14:37, Doug  wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 07:40, "Brimstone"  wrote:> Doug wrote:
> > > Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>
> > Still gloating over other people's tragedies?
>
> > <snipped>
>
> > > Interesting. Shouldn't this qualify as 'terrorism' then?
>
> > What political objective was this car thief pursuing?
>
> The right to drive regardless of the circumstances.
>
> --
> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

So the right to drive is now a political objective?
(the whoosing sound you hear is them there goalposts again)

Francis

On 13 Jun, 09:12, BrianW  wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 07:12, Doug  wrote:
>
> > Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>
> He got a longer sentence than the average one handed down for
> manslaughter.  Perhaps you could explain how that qualifies as
> "preferential treatment" in GollumWorld.
>
Need I remind you, Blackhead, that the maximum sentence for
manslaughter is life compared with 14 years for dangerous driving?
Obviously, the former is regarded as much more serious than the latter
but is not applied to privileged killer motorists. Instead they have
their own cosy little specialised charge, unlike other killers. Why
should killing with a car be treated as less serious than killing with
any other weapon?

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

In article <da35a529-d33d-4bb8-a828-22c70b68b263
@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> Interesting. Shouldn't this qualify as 'terrorism' then?

No because it wasn't promoting a political cause.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <83cfd0e6-7a9b-42ec-9235-
76964c68f62b@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> > What political objective was this car thief pursuing?
> >
> The right to drive regardless of the circumstances.
> 
Is not a political objective.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On 13 Jun, 14:56, Doug  wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 09:12, BrianW  wrote:> On 13 Jun, 07:12, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>
> > He got a longer sentence than the average one handed down for
> > manslaughter.  Perhaps you could explain how that qualifies as
> > "preferential treatment" in GollumWorld.
>
> Need I remind you, Blackhead, that the maximum sentence for
> manslaughter is life compared with 14 years for dangerous driving?
> Obviously, the former is regarded as much more serious than the latter
> but is not applied to privileged killer motorists. Instead they have
> their own cosy little specialised charge, unlike other killers. Why
> should killing with a car be treated as less serious than killing with
> any other weapon?

May I remind you, Gollum, that the scumbag in question did not get the
maximum sentence available under the death by dangerous driving law,
therefore the question of whether he was charged with one offence or
the other is irrelevant as regards the sentence handed down.

On 13 Jun, 14:37, Doug  wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 07:40, "Brimstone"  wrote:> Doug wrote:
> > > Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>
> > Still gloating over other people's tragedies?
>
> > <snipped>
>
> > > Interesting. Shouldn't this qualify as 'terrorism' then?
>
> > What political objective was this car thief pursuing?
>
> The right to drive regardless of the circumstances.

Christ, you *really* are stupid, aren't you Gollum?

On 13 Jun, 15:13, BrianW  wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 14:56, Doug  wrote:
>
> > On 13 Jun, 09:12, BrianW  wrote:> On 13 Jun, 07:12, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > > Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>
> > > He got a longer sentence than the average one handed down for
> > > manslaughter.  Perhaps you could explain how that qualifies as
> > > "preferential treatment" in GollumWorld.
>
> > Need I remind you, Blackhead, that the maximum sentence for
> > manslaughter is life compared with 14 years for dangerous driving?
> > Obviously, the former is regarded as much more serious than the latter
> > but is not applied to privileged killer motorists. Instead they have
> > their own cosy little specialised charge, unlike other killers. Why
> > should killing with a car be treated as less serious than killing with
> > any other weapon?
>
> May I remind you, Gollum, that the scumbag in question did not get the
> maximum sentence available under the death by dangerous driving law,
> therefore the question of whether he was charged with one offence or
> the other is irrelevant as regards the sentence handed down.
>
No, Blackhead, regardless of the sentence handed down in individual
cases, the perception must be that death by dangerous driving is less
serious than manslaughter, when judged by maximum sentence. Why is it
then that manslaughter is not used across the board instead of road
killings being a particular exception?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

BrianW wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 14:37, Doug  wrote:
>> On 13 Jun, 07:40, "Brimstone" 
>> wrote:> Doug wrote:
>>>> Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>>
>>> Still gloating over other people's tragedies?
>>
>>> <snipped>
>>
>>>> Interesting. Shouldn't this qualify as 'terrorism' then?
>>
>>> What political objective was this car thief pursuing?
>>
>> The right to drive regardless of the circumstances.
>
> Christ, you *really* are stupid, aren't you Gollum?

OI!!!

What happened to that apology to Gollum?  >:-(

On 13 Jun, 15:25, Doug  wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 15:13, BrianW  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 Jun, 14:56, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > On 13 Jun, 09:12, BrianW  wrote:> On 13 Jun, 07:12, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > > > Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>
> > > > He got a longer sentence than the average one handed down for
> > > > manslaughter.  Perhaps you could explain how that qualifies as
> > > > "preferential treatment" in GollumWorld.
>
> > > Need I remind you, Blackhead, that the maximum sentence for
> > > manslaughter is life compared with 14 years for dangerous driving?
> > > Obviously, the former is regarded as much more serious than the latter> > > but is not applied to privileged killer motorists. Instead they have
> > > their own cosy little specialised charge, unlike other killers. Why
> > > should killing with a car be treated as less serious than killing with> > > any other weapon?
>
> > May I remind you, Gollum, that the scumbag in question did not get the
> > maximum sentence available under the death by dangerous driving law,
> > therefore the question of whether he was charged with one offence or
> > the other is irrelevant as regards the sentence handed down.
>
> No, Blackhead, regardless of the sentence handed down in individual
> cases, the perception must be that death by dangerous driving is less
> serious than manslaughter, when judged by maximum sentence. Why is it
> then that manslaughter is not used across the board instead of road
> killings being a particular exception?

<sigh>

How many times have we explained this to you, Golltard?

"In 1956 a third offence of 'Causing Death by Reckless or Dangerous
Driving' was introduced, to avoid having to employ the charge of
manslaughter in these cases. It was felt, at that time, that juries
were reluctant to convict drivers of manslaughter."

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme2/dangerousdrivingandthelawno26?page=3

If you want to see lots more killer drivers let off the hook, then by
all means campaign for the offence of causing death by dangerous
driving to be removed from the statute books.  It would be yet another
of your glorious own goals, Gollum.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:af88e06b-788f-476c-bf64-74f02c0d9ace@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 13 Jun, 09:12, BrianW  wrote:
>> On 13 Jun, 07:12, Doug  wrote:
>>
>> > Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>>
>> He got a longer sentence than the average one handed down for
>> manslaughter.  Perhaps you could explain how that qualifies as
>> "preferential treatment" in GollumWorld.
>>
> Need I remind you, Blackhead, that the maximum sentence for
> manslaughter is life compared with 14 years for dangerous driving?
> Obviously, the former is regarded as much more serious than the latter
> but is not applied to privileged killer motorists. Instead they have
> their own cosy little specialised charge, unlike other killers. Why
> should killing with a car be treated as less serious than killing with
> any other weapon?

May I remind you of your own words from 03 June, in a thread titled 
"Motorist terrorist in action" (therefore must've been another of your 
threads):
"Try thinking averages for a change, instead of cherry picking anecdotals."

That is _exactly_ what Brian was doing - looking at the average sentence, 
and along you come and try to cherry pick an anectodal. Is it any wonder 
that people brand you with the word hypoctite?

Doug wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 15:13, BrianW  wrote:
>> On 13 Jun, 14:56, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 Jun, 09:12, BrianW  wrote:> On 13 Jun, 07:12, Doug  wrote:
>>>>> Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>>>> He got a longer sentence than the average one handed down for
>>>> manslaughter.  Perhaps you could explain how that qualifies as
>>>> "preferential treatment" in GollumWorld.
>>> Need I remind you, Blackhead, that the maximum sentence for
>>> manslaughter is life compared with 14 years for dangerous driving?
>>> Obviously, the former is regarded as much more serious than the latter
>>> but is not applied to privileged killer motorists. Instead they have
>>> their own cosy little specialised charge, unlike other killers. Why
>>> should killing with a car be treated as less serious than killing with
>>> any other weapon?
>> May I remind you, Gollum, that the scumbag in question did not get the
>> maximum sentence available under the death by dangerous driving law,
>> therefore the question of whether he was charged with one offence or
>> the other is irrelevant as regards the sentence handed down.
>>
> No, Blackhead, regardless of the sentence handed down in individual
> cases, the perception must be that death by dangerous driving is less
> serious than manslaughter, when judged by maximum sentence. Why is it
> then that manslaughter is not used across the board instead of road
> killings being a particular exception?
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> One man's democracy is another man's regime.

How many times do you have to have it explained to you?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 13 Jun, 15:38, BrianW  wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 15:25, Doug  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 Jun, 15:13, BrianW  wrote:
>
> > > On 13 Jun, 14:56, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > > On 13 Jun, 09:12, BrianW  wrote:> On 13 Jun, 07:12, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > > > > Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>
> > > > > He got a longer sentence than the average one handed down for
> > > > > manslaughter.  Perhaps you could explain how that qualifies as
> > > > > "preferential treatment" in GollumWorld.
>
> > > > Need I remind you, Blackhead, that the maximum sentence for
> > > > manslaughter is life compared with 14 years for dangerous driving?
> > > > Obviously, the former is regarded as much more serious than the latter
> > > > but is not applied to privileged killer motorists. Instead they have
> > > > their own cosy little specialised charge, unlike other killers. Why
> > > > should killing with a car be treated as less serious than killing with
> > > > any other weapon?
>
> > > May I remind you, Gollum, that the scumbag in question did not get the
> > > maximum sentence available under the death by dangerous driving law,
> > > therefore the question of whether he was charged with one offence or
> > > the other is irrelevant as regards the sentence handed down.
>
> > No, Blackhead, regardless of the sentence handed down in individual
> > cases, the perception must be that death by dangerous driving is less
> > serious than manslaughter, when judged by maximum sentence. Why is it
> > then that manslaughter is not used across the board instead of road
> > killings being a particular exception?
>
> <sigh>
>
> How many times have we explained this to you, Golltard?
>
> "In 1956 a third offence of 'Causing Death by Reckless or Dangerous
> Driving' was introduced, to avoid having to employ the charge of
> manslaughter in these cases. It was felt, at that time, that juries
> were reluctant to convict drivers of manslaughter."
>

Well, probably this is one of the few crimes where the jury are often
more likely to identify with the killer than with the victim.
Aspirationally so in the 1950s, I expect. They were never going to
have had it so good, soon.

Doug wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 07:40, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>> Still gloating over other people's tragedies?
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>>> Interesting. Shouldn't this qualify as 'terrorism' then?
>> What political objective was this car thief pursuing?
>>
> The right to drive regardless of the circumstances.

It's not a right you nob, it's a priviledge. You have to pass a test 
before you can do so legally, it's not something you're just given.

Doug fucks up again...

-- 
Abo

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:83cfd0e6-7a9b-42ec-9235-76964c68f62b@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 13 Jun, 07:40, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>>
>> Still gloating over other people's tragedies?
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> > Interesting. Shouldn't this qualify as 'terrorism' then?
>>
>> What political objective was this car thief pursuing?
>>
> The right to drive regardless of the circumstances.

Oh dear. Having trouble with definitions gag, are we?

The Oxford English Dictionary says this about the word terrorist:
"Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive 
intimidation"

And so we're clear, the word 'further' is defined as 'to promote, favour'.

Was this person trying to promote his views by his actions? No, of course 
not. He didn't have banners proclaiming that he, or others, should have the 
right to drive regardless of the circumstances. He wasn't trying to persuade 
others that this should be the case. He was simply a pratt who thought the 
rules didn't apply to him and could do as he liked. Therfore not terrorism. 
QED

Graculus wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
> news:83cfd0e6-7a9b-42ec-9235-76964c68f62b@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On 13 Jun, 07:40, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>>>
>>> Still gloating over other people's tragedies?
>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>>> Interesting. Shouldn't this qualify as 'terrorism' then?
>>>
>>> What political objective was this car thief pursuing?
>>>
>> The right to drive regardless of the circumstances.
>
> Oh dear. Having trouble with definitions gag, are we?
>
> The Oxford English Dictionary says this about the word terrorist:
> "Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive
> intimidation"
>
> And so we're clear, the word 'further' is defined as 'to promote,
> favour'.
> Was this person trying to promote his views by his actions? No, of
> course not. He didn't have banners proclaiming that he, or others,
> should have the right to drive regardless of the circumstances. He
> wasn't trying to persuade others that this should be the case. He was
> simply a pratt who thought the rules didn't apply to him and could do
> as he liked. Therfore not terrorism. QED

You've forgotten to explain QED to him.

On 13 Jun, 18:26, "Graculus" 
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:83cfd0e6-7a9b-42ec-9235-76964c68f62b@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 13 Jun, 07:40, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >> > Another killer terrorist motorist gets preferential treatment.
>
> >> Still gloating over other people's tragedies?
>
> >> <snipped>
>
> >> > Interesting. Shouldn't this qualify as 'terrorism' then?
>
> >> What political objective was this car thief pursuing?
>
> > The right to drive regardless of the circumstances.
>
> Oh dear. Having trouble with definitions gag, are we?
>
> The Oxford English Dictionary says this about the word terrorist:
> "Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive
> intimidation"
>
> And so we're clear, the word 'further' is defined as 'to promote, favour'.
>
> Was this person trying to promote his views by his actions? No, of course
> not. He didn't have banners proclaiming that he, or others, should have the
> right to drive regardless of the circumstances. He wasn't trying to persuade
> others that this should be the case. He was simply a pratt who thought the
> rules didn't apply to him and could do as he liked. Therfore not terrorism.
> QED

I'm sorry, but that is far too much like common sense to persuade
Doug.  Nice try!