Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the vulnerable
victim is not confined just to this NG.

"LEWISHAM: Toddler dies after road accident

A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died in
hospital.

The accident happened at around 10pm when the two-year-old boy was in
collision with the vehicle in Woolstone Road, Forest Hill.

He was taken to King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, where he died
at 7.44am this morning (June 24).

His mother Patricia Brito was too distraught to talk about what
happened to her son Kevin.

But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and was in
the road when the incident happened.

They say the two-year-old became trapped under the vehicle and was
dragged underneath as it skidded to a stop..."

More:

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.2359754.0.lewisham_toddler_dies_after_road_accident.php

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the vulnerable
> victim is not confined just to this NG.
>
And it seems that you're still quite happy to gloat of the tragic death of a 
child and the obvious distress of his  family.

You really should see a doctor.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:58021db4-7a9b-4615-8b49-96062346b2f6@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the vulnerable
> victim is not confined just to this NG.

Trying to make something out of someone's misfortune again, are you? Nowhere 
in what you copy'n'pasted does it attempt to apportion any blame to the boy, 
so I am not sure what you are trying to say (actually, I do know what you 
are trying to say, it's just that you have absolutely no basis for saying 
it).

On 24 Jun, 18:38, Doug  wrote:
> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the vulnerable
> victim is not confined just to this NG.

Good wank, was it Gollum?

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other way
> around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for getting in
> the way of the car, obviously.

Must have brought back memories, eh, Duhg?

> A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died in
> hospital.

Seems to put the onus on the car there.

> when the two-year-old boy was in collision with the vehicle

Which he was. There's no "blame" in that wording. The boy was in 
collision with the vehicle which was in collision with the boy.

> But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and was in
> the road when the incident happened.
> 
> They say the two-year-old became trapped under the vehicle and was
> dragged underneath as it skidded to a stop..."

So a toddler (who can't be expected to have any kind of road-sense of his 
own) was loose and unsupervised, got into the road, and the driver - 
after hitting him - stopped as quickly as he possibly could.

How, exactly, are you so certain from that description that it was the 
car driver's fault? Apart - of course - from your preconceptions and 
inherent bias.

"Graculus"  gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

> Nowhere in what you copy'n'pasted does it attempt to apportion any blame
> to the boy

Apart from being fairly explicit that he'd escaped from the house and was 
in the road - and that the car driver stopped as quickly as s/he possibly 
could after hitting the poor little sod.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:58021db4-7a9b-4615-8b49-96062346b2f6@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the vulnerable
> victim is not confined just to this NG.
>
> "LEWISHAM: Toddler dies after road accident
>
> A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died in
> hospital.
>
> The accident happened at around 10pm when the two-year-old boy was in
> collision with the vehicle in Woolstone Road, Forest Hill.
>
> He was taken to King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, where he died
> at 7.44am this morning (June 24).
>
> His mother Patricia Brito was too distraught to talk about what
> happened to her son Kevin.
>
> But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and was in
> the road when the incident happened.


Sounds to me that the parents didn't take adequate care of their child.
Why don't you call for parents to be banned?

-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

Doug wrote:
> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the vulnerable
> victim is not confined just to this NG.
> 
> "LEWISHAM: Toddler dies after road accident
> 
> A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died in
> hospital.
> 
> The accident happened at around 10pm when the two-year-old boy was in
> collision with the vehicle in Woolstone Road, Forest Hill.
> 
> He was taken to King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, where he died
> at 7.44am this morning (June 24).
> 
> His mother Patricia Brito was too distraught to talk about what
> happened to her son Kevin.
> 
> But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and was in
> the road when the incident happened.
> 
> They say the two-year-old became trapped under the vehicle and was
> dragged underneath as it skidded to a stop..."
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.2359754.0.lewisham_toddler_dies_after_road_accident.php
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Not many details there to try to work out who was to blame, but 
obviously enough for you to gloat & work out who was to blame.

A child was hit by a car, a car hit a child, whats the difference?
There was no report about the car, the report does not say the driver 
was drunk, so we can assume that he was not.
Was the car speeding or being driven dangerously, no report.
The report does say child was not supervised, surely this is wrong, and 
before you rant I am not saying the child was in the wrong

Perhaps before you gloat like this you should wait for the full facts.


-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 24 Jun, 21:15, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other way
> > around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for getting in
> > the way of the car, obviously.
>
> Must have brought back memories, eh, Duhg?
>
> > A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died in
> > hospital.
>
> Seems to put the onus on the car there.
>
> > when the two-year-old boy was in collision with the vehicle
>
> Which he was. There's no "blame" in that wording. The boy was in
> collision with the vehicle which was in collision with the boy.
>
> > But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and was in
> > the road when the incident happened.
>
> > They say the two-year-old became trapped under the vehicle and was
> > dragged underneath as it skidded to a stop..."
>
> So a toddler (who can't be expected to have any kind of road-sense of his
> own) was loose and unsupervised, got into the road, and the driver -
> after hitting him - stopped as quickly as he possibly could.
>
> How, exactly, are you so certain from that description that it was the
> car driver's fault? Apart - of course - from your preconceptions and
> inherent bias.

The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public road
and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm caused by
that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person. The fact that
the law does not support this is nothing short of uncivilised and
inhuman.

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

On 24 Jun, 20:34, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOO!!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk>
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:58021db4-7a9b-4615-8b49-96062346b2f6@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
> > way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
> > getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the vulnerable
> > victim is not confined just to this NG.
>
> > "LEWISHAM: Toddler dies after road accident
>
> > A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died in
> > hospital.
>
> > The accident happened at around 10pm when the two-year-old boy was in
> > collision with the vehicle in Woolstone Road, Forest Hill.
>
> > He was taken to King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, where he died
> > at 7.44am this morning (June 24).
>
> > His mother Patricia Brito was too distraught to talk about what
> > happened to her son Kevin.
>
> > But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and was in
> > the road when the incident happened.
>
> Sounds to me that the parents didn't take adequate care of their child.
> Why don't you call for parents to be banned?
>
Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.

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

Doug wrote:
> On 24 Jun, 21:15, Adrian  wrote:
>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
>>> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
>>> getting in the way of the car, obviously.
>>
>> Must have brought back memories, eh, Duhg?
>>
>>> A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died in
>>> hospital.
>>
>> Seems to put the onus on the car there.
>>
>>> when the two-year-old boy was in collision with the vehicle
>>
>> Which he was. There's no "blame" in that wording. The boy was in
>> collision with the vehicle which was in collision with the boy.
>>
>>> But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and was
>>> in the road when the incident happened.
>>
>>> They say the two-year-old became trapped under the vehicle and was
>>> dragged underneath as it skidded to a stop..."
>>
>> So a toddler (who can't be expected to have any kind of road-sense
>> of his own) was loose and unsupervised, got into the road, and the
>> driver - after hitting him - stopped as quickly as he possibly could.
>>
>> How, exactly, are you so certain from that description that it was
>> the car driver's fault? Apart - of course - from your preconceptions
>> and inherent bias.
>
> The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public road
> and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm caused by
> that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person. The fact that
> the law does not support this is nothing short of uncivilised and
> inhuman.

Why do you insist on using someone else's tragedy to attack an innocent 
person who is most probably now suffering severe emotional and psychological 
trauma and who will probably need medical help for the rest of their lives?

Doug wrote:
> On 24 Jun, 20:34, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOO!!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:58021db4-7a9b-4615-8b49-96062346b2f6@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
>>> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
>>> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the
>>> vulnerable victim is not confined just to this NG.
>>
>>> "LEWISHAM: Toddler dies after road accident
>>
>>> A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died in
>>> hospital.
>>
>>> The accident happened at around 10pm when the two-year-old boy was
>>> in collision with the vehicle in Woolstone Road, Forest Hill.
>>
>>> He was taken to King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, where he died
>>> at 7.44am this morning (June 24).
>>
>>> His mother Patricia Brito was too distraught to talk about what
>>> happened to her son Kevin.
>>
>>> But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and was
>>> in the road when the incident happened.
>>
>> Sounds to me that the parents didn't take adequate care of their
>> child. Why don't you call for parents to be banned?
>>
> Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.

No it isn't. If your parents had taken proper care of you the rest of us 
wouldn't now be having to put up with your drooling idiocy.

> Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.

Yet again you demonstrate your stupidity.

Doug wrote:
> On 24 Jun, 21:15, Adrian  wrote:
>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other way
>>> around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for getting in
>>> the way of the car, obviously.
>> Must have brought back memories, eh, Duhg?
>>
>>> A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died in
>>> hospital.
>> Seems to put the onus on the car there.
>>
>>> when the two-year-old boy was in collision with the vehicle
>> Which he was. There's no "blame" in that wording. The boy was in
>> collision with the vehicle which was in collision with the boy.
>>
>>> But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and was in
>>> the road when the incident happened.
>>> They say the two-year-old became trapped under the vehicle and was
>>> dragged underneath as it skidded to a stop..."
>> So a toddler (who can't be expected to have any kind of road-sense of his
>> own) was loose and unsupervised, got into the road, and the driver -
>> after hitting him - stopped as quickly as he possibly could.
>>
>> How, exactly, are you so certain from that description that it was the
>> car driver's fault? Apart - of course - from your preconceptions and
>> inherent bias.
> 
> The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public road
> and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm caused by
> that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person. The fact that
> the law does not support this is nothing short of uncivilised and
> inhuman.
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

How do you know that the motorist is not a vulnerable person who is not 
now suffering. Ah as usual you have only one thought in your head
* child, accident, motor vehicle * no concern for the victims in the 
article.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
> Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.

If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of steps, would 
you have blamed the builders?

On 25 Jun, 07:27, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
> > Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.
>
> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of steps, would
> you have blamed the builders?

No, self-harm doesn't count. There has to be an active perpetrator,
such as a motorist.

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

Doug wrote:
> On 25 Jun, 07:27, Adrian  wrote:
>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>> Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
>>> Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.
>>
>> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of steps,
>> would you have blamed the builders?
>
> No, self-harm doesn't count. There has to be an active perpetrator,
> such as a motorist.

What about if the child had gallen out of the car and banged its head on the 
road surface?

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
>> > Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.

>> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of steps,
>> would you have blamed the builders?

> No, self-harm doesn't count. There has to be an active perpetrator, such
> as a motorist.

Right. So a kid running loose and tripping over some steps is the kid's 
fault. But the same kid running loose in the same way and running into 
the road is the driver's fault.

You're not, perhaps, seeing a slight lack of consistency there? No, 
thought not.

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:wv2dndlcg6fsQfzVnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@bt.com...
> Doug wrote:
>> On 24 Jun, 21:15, Adrian  wrote:
>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>> were saying:
>>>
>>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
>>>> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
>>>> getting in the way of the car, obviously.
>>>
>>> Must have brought back memories, eh, Duhg?
>>>
>>>> A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died in
>>>> hospital.
>>>
>>> Seems to put the onus on the car there.
>>>
>>>> when the two-year-old boy was in collision with the vehicle
>>>
>>> Which he was. There's no "blame" in that wording. The boy was in
>>> collision with the vehicle which was in collision with the boy.
>>>
>>>> But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and was
>>>> in the road when the incident happened.
>>>
>>>> They say the two-year-old became trapped under the vehicle and was
>>>> dragged underneath as it skidded to a stop..."
>>>
>>> So a toddler (who can't be expected to have any kind of road-sense
>>> of his own) was loose and unsupervised, got into the road, and the
>>> driver - after hitting him - stopped as quickly as he possibly could.
>>>
>>> How, exactly, are you so certain from that description that it was
>>> the car driver's fault? Apart - of course - from your preconceptions
>>> and inherent bias.
>>
>> The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public road
>> and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm caused by
>> that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person. The fact that
>> the law does not support this is nothing short of uncivilised and
>> inhuman.
>
> Why do you insist on using someone else's tragedy to attack an innocent 
> person who is most probably now suffering severe emotional and 
> psychological trauma and who will probably need medical help for the rest 
> of their lives?

With respect...
Its because he gets a reaction from you lot. Yup, I used to feed him. But 
since killfilling him, Usenet has got a whole lot better   :o)
Ask yourself why he doesnt troll the countless other car, 4x4, transport etc 
NGs

On Jun 25, 6:45 am, Doug  wrote:
> On 24 Jun, 21:15, Adrian  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
>
> > > Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other way
> > > around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for getting in
> > > the way of the car, obviously.
>
> > Must have brought back memories, eh, Duhg?
>
> > > A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died in
> > > hospital.
>
> > Seems to put the onus on the car there.
>
> > > when the two-year-old boy was in collision with the vehicle
>
> > Which he was. There's no "blame" in that wording. The boy was in
> > collision with the vehicle which was in collision with the boy.
>
> > > But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and was in
> > > the road when the incident happened.
>
> > > They say the two-year-old became trapped under the vehicle and was
> > > dragged underneath as it skidded to a stop..."
>
> > So a toddler (who can't be expected to have any kind of road-sense of his
> > own) was loose and unsupervised, got into the road, and the driver -
> > after hitting him - stopped as quickly as he possibly could.
>
> > How, exactly, are you so certain from that description that it was the
> > car driver's fault? Apart - of course - from your preconceptions and
> > inherent bias.
>
> The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public road
> and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm caused by
> that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person. The fact that
> the law does not support this is nothing short of uncivilised and
> inhuman.
>

The only thing inhuman about this is you using it to promote your anti
car agenda.

Which oddly has nothing to do with road safety and is purely anti car*

Fod

* I can point out several posts where Doug has been against things
that would improve road safety purely because they didn't involve a
restriction on cars.

On Jun 25, 7:27 am, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
> > Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.
>
> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of steps, would
> you have blamed the builders?

They would have used motor vehicles as part of the construction so
would clearly have be motorist ( builder) terrorists who set out to
kill, maim and destroy to further their car agenda.

I shouldn't post whacky stuff like this... the last time I did Doug
agreed with it.

Fod

On Jun 25, 8:34 am, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> > Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
> >> > Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.
> >> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of steps,
> >> would you have blamed the builders?
> > No, self-harm doesn't count. There has to be an active perpetrator, such> > as a motorist.
>
> Right. So a kid running loose and tripping over some steps is the kid's
> fault. But the same kid running loose in the same way and running into
> the road is the driver's fault.
>
> You're not, perhaps, seeing a slight lack of consistency there? No,
> thought not.

Doug and consistency?  This is the same man that argued for higher and
lower crop prices at the same time.  ( of course he denied it at the
time and then went quiet when the message IDs were posted)

Its also the same man who's views changed so much over the course of a
discussion he ended up arguing with himself.

Fod

Doug wrote:
> On 25 Jun, 07:27, Adrian  wrote:
>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>> Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
>>> Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.
>> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of steps, would
>> you have blamed the builders?
> 
> No, self-harm doesn't count. There has to be an active perpetrator,
> such as a motorist.
> 
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.


...or a cyclist, perhaps?

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

Fod wrote:
> On Jun 25, 7:27 am, Adrian  wrote:
>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>> Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
>>> Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.
>> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of steps, would
>> you have blamed the builders?
> 
> They would have used motor vehicles as part of the construction so
> would clearly have be motorist ( builder) terrorists who set out to
> kill, maim and destroy to further their car agenda.
> 
> I shouldn't post whacky stuff like this... the last time I did Doug
> agreed with it.
> 
> Fod

Ah, guilty by association! Doomed, I say, doomed!

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

Doug wrote:
> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the vulnerable
> victim is not confined just to this NG.

More point scoring through tragedy and revelling in the death of 
children? Shame on you.

-- 
Abo

Doug wrote:
> On 25 Jun, 07:27, Adrian  wrote:
>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>> Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
>>> Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.
>> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of steps, would
>> you have blamed the builders?
> 
> No, self-harm doesn't count. There has to be an active perpetrator,
> such as a motorist.

How about if the child had run out in front of a cyclist? Or a bus?

-- 
Abo

Abo <no@spam.thanks> wrote:

> Doug wrote:
> > Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
> > way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
> > getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the vulnerable
> > victim is not confined just to this NG.
> 
> More point scoring through tragedy and revelling in the death of 
> children? Shame on you.

Perhaps they are all ghoulish in Lewisham? This sentence in the report
suggests that there's somethign wrong with the residents:

"Angeliki Kallipoliti watched from her window because she is pregnant
and did not want to get too stressed."

Nauseating.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:f225b821-6dcd-46bc-8cad-c0c0fb942e57@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 Jun, 07:27, Adrian  wrote:
>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>> > Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
>> > Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.
>>
>> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of steps, would
>> you have blamed the builders?
>
> No, self-harm doesn't count. There has to be an active perpetrator,
> such as a motorist.

Is this self-harm, or was the child in collision with the river (which was 
clearly moving), in which case the river is clearly to blame?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7473109.stm

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:710f1f1f-0c5e-419a-8f7f-3aea50b73040@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 24 Jun, 21:15, Adrian  wrote:
>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>> > Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other way
>> > around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for getting in
>> > the way of the car, obviously.
>>
>> Must have brought back memories, eh, Duhg?
>>
>> > A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died in
>> > hospital.
>>
>> Seems to put the onus on the car there.
>>
>> > when the two-year-old boy was in collision with the vehicle
>>
>> Which he was. There's no "blame" in that wording. The boy was in
>> collision with the vehicle which was in collision with the boy.
>>
>> > But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and was in
>> > the road when the incident happened.
>>
>> > They say the two-year-old became trapped under the vehicle and was
>> > dragged underneath as it skidded to a stop..."
>>
>> So a toddler (who can't be expected to have any kind of road-sense of his
>> own) was loose and unsupervised, got into the road, and the driver -
>> after hitting him - stopped as quickly as he possibly could.
>>
>> How, exactly, are you so certain from that description that it was the
>> car driver's fault? Apart - of course - from your preconceptions and
>> inherent bias.
>
> The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public road
> and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm caused by
> that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person. The fact that
> the law does not support this is nothing short of uncivilised and
> inhuman.

Wrong again, as usual. Your assertion that anyone in control of a piece of 
machinery is responsible no matter what for harm caused is based on fallacy 
and prejudice. The law does not insist on such a level of responsibility for 
other pieces of machinery, e.g. if I choose to jump into a combine-harvester 
or threshing machine, the operator can hardly be held at fault if they 
couldn't see it coming.

On 24 Jun, 18:38, Doug  wrote:
> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the vulnerable
> victim is not confined just to this NG.

And in the news elsewhere another tragic accident involving a Toddler.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7473109.stm

Are you going to call for the river Thames to be banned as well?
After all, it does encourage frivolous hypermobility.

Doug wrote:
> 
> The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public road
> and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm caused by
> that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person.

Drivel.

> The fact that 
> the law does not support this is 

Makes Duhg an ass.

On 25 Jun, 15:41, NotMe  wrote:
> On 24 Jun, 18:38, Doug  wrote:
>
> > Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
> > way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
> > getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the vulnerable
> > victim is not confined just to this NG.
>
> And in the news elsewhere another tragic accident involving a Toddler.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7473109.stm
>
> Are you going to call for the river Thames to be banned as well?
> After all, it does encourage frivolous hypermobility.

Death not caused by a perpetrator, unlike those caused by killer
motorists.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 25 Jun, 19:14, Phil Bradshaw
<philbrads...@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>
> > The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public road
> > and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm caused by
> > that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person.
>
> Drivel.
>
> > The fact that
> > the law does not support this is
>
> Makes Duhg an ass.

Why are you trying to make excuses for killer motorists?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
> On 25 Jun, 19:14, Phil Bradshaw
> <philbrads...@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>
>>> The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public road
>>> and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm caused
>>> by that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person.
>>
>> Drivel.
>>
>>> The fact that
>>> the law does not support this is
>>
>> Makes Duhg an ass.
>
> Why are you trying to make excuses for killer motorists?

Why are you gloating over the death of a child?

Doug wrote:
> On 25 Jun, 15:41, NotMe  wrote:
>> On 24 Jun, 18:38, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
>>> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
>>> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the
>>> vulnerable victim is not confined just to this NG.
>>
>> And in the news elsewhere another tragic accident involving a
>> Toddler.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7473109.stm
>>
>> Are you going to call for the river Thames to be banned as well?
>> After all, it does encourage frivolous hypermobility.
>
> Death not caused by a perpetrator, unlike those caused by killer
> motorists.

Doug wrote:
> On 25 Jun, 15:41, NotMe  wrote:
>> On 24 Jun, 18:38, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
>>> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
>>> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the
>>> vulnerable victim is not confined just to this NG.
>>
>> And in the news elsewhere another tragic accident involving a
>> Toddler.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7473109.stm
>>
>> Are you going to call for the river Thames to be banned as well?
>> After all, it does encourage frivolous hypermobility.
>
> Death not caused by a perpetrator, unlike those caused by killer
> motorists.

Where's your evidence that the motorist intended to cause harm to anyone 
else?

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:DoGdnazEJo8I-P7VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> Doug wrote:
>> On 25 Jun, 15:41, NotMe  wrote:
>>> On 24 Jun, 18:38, Doug  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
>>>> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
>>>> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the
>>>> vulnerable victim is not confined just to this NG.
>>>
>>> And in the news elsewhere another tragic accident involving a
>>> Toddler.
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7473109.stm
>>>
>>> Are you going to call for the river Thames to be banned as well?
>>> After all, it does encourage frivolous hypermobility.
>>
>> Death not caused by a perpetrator, unlike those caused by killer
>> motorists.
>
> Where's your evidence that the motorist intended to cause harm to anyone > 
> else?

In DougWorld, the First Rule of Dougism is that the person who is hit is 
always "innocent" and the person who does the hitting is always "guilty" - 
irrespective of the circumstances such as whether the victim should or 
shouldn't have been where he was according to the rules of the road.

The Second Rule of Dougism is that it's only an accident if there's no-one 
else (apart form the "innocent" victim) involved.

"Mortimer"  wrote in message 
news:s6GdnSq5hMHT5P7VnZ2dnUVZ8tbinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
> news:DoGdnazEJo8I-P7VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 25 Jun, 15:41, NotMe  wrote:
>>>> On 24 Jun, 18:38, Doug  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
>>>>> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
>>>>> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the
>>>>> vulnerable victim is not confined just to this NG.
>>>>
>>>> And in the news elsewhere another tragic accident involving a
>>>> Toddler.
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7473109.stm
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to call for the river Thames to be banned as well?
>>>> After all, it does encourage frivolous hypermobility.
>>>
>>> Death not caused by a perpetrator, unlike those caused by killer
>>> motorists.
>>
>> Where's your evidence that the motorist intended to cause harm to anyone 
>>  > else?
>
> In DougWorld, the First Rule of Dougism is that the person who is hit is 
> always "innocent" and the person who does the hitting is always "guilty" - 
> irrespective of the circumstances such as whether the victim should or 
> shouldn't have been where he was according to the rules of the road.
>
> The Second Rule of Dougism is that it's only an accident if there's no-one 
> else (apart form the "innocent" victim) involved.

Applying those rules, there really is no point in continuing to argue with 
him. It's like arguing with someone who dogmatically sticks to the fallacy 
that the world is flat, and never mind all the inconsistencies that leads 
to.

Graculus wrote:
> "Mortimer"  wrote in message
> news:s6GdnSq5hMHT5P7VnZ2dnUVZ8tbinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>> news:DoGdnazEJo8I-P7VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 25 Jun, 15:41, NotMe  wrote:
>>>>> On 24 Jun, 18:38, Doug  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the
>>>>>> other way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for
>>>>>> blame for getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems
>>>>>> blaming the vulnerable victim is not confined just to this NG.
>>>>>
>>>>> And in the news elsewhere another tragic accident involving a
>>>>> Toddler.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7473109.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you going to call for the river Thames to be banned as well?
>>>>> After all, it does encourage frivolous hypermobility.
>>>>
>>>> Death not caused by a perpetrator, unlike those caused by killer
>>>> motorists.
>>>
>>> Where's your evidence that the motorist intended to cause harm to
>>>  anyone > else?
>>
>> In DougWorld, the First Rule of Dougism is that the person who is
>> hit is always "innocent" and the person who does the hitting is
>> always "guilty" - irrespective of the circumstances such as whether
>> the victim should or shouldn't have been where he was according to
>> the rules of the road. The Second Rule of Dougism is that it's only an 
>> accident if there's
>> no-one else (apart form the "innocent" victim) involved.
>
> Applying those rules, there really is no point in continuing to argue
> with him. It's like arguing with someone who dogmatically sticks to
> the fallacy that the world is flat, and never mind all the
> inconsistencies that leads to.

But later in the hypothetical thread where he argues that the world is flat, 
he's just as likely to argue that the world is indeed round and will deny 
ever having said anything different.

Mortimer wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
> news:DoGdnazEJo8I-P7VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 25 Jun, 15:41, NotMe  wrote:
>>>> On 24 Jun, 18:38, Doug  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
>>>>> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
>>>>> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the
>>>>> vulnerable victim is not confined just to this NG.
>>>> And in the news elsewhere another tragic accident involving a
>>>> Toddler.
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7473109.stm
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to call for the river Thames to be banned as well?
>>>> After all, it does encourage frivolous hypermobility.
>>> Death not caused by a perpetrator, unlike those caused by killer
>>> motorists.
>> Where's your evidence that the motorist intended to cause harm to anyone > 
>> else?
> 
> In DougWorld, the First Rule of Dougism is that the person who is hit is 
> always "innocent" and the person who does the hitting is always "guilty" - 
> irrespective of the circumstances such as whether the victim should or 
> shouldn't have been where he was according to the rules of the road.

Nono, it's only if the person doing the hitting is driving a car. He 
still hasn't answered my question as to who would be at fault if the 
vechicle hitting the kid was a bike or a bus...

-- 
Abo

Graculus  wrote:

[Doug]

> Applying those rules, there really is no point in continuing to argue with
> him.

Indeed, once he's made his mind up about something, and even when his
nose is ground into the overwhelming evidence to the contrary the best
one can expect is a few days of silence before Duhg repeats the same old
crap.

"Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
news:g402oc$pur$1@news.albasani.net...
> Mortimer wrote:
>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
>> news:DoGdnazEJo8I-P7VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 25 Jun, 15:41, NotMe  wrote:
>>>>> On 24 Jun, 18:38, Doug  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
>>>>>> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
>>>>>> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the
>>>>>> vulnerable victim is not confined just to this NG.
>>>>> And in the news elsewhere another tragic accident involving a
>>>>> Toddler.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7473109.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you going to call for the river Thames to be banned as well?
>>>>> After all, it does encourage frivolous hypermobility.
>>>> Death not caused by a perpetrator, unlike those caused by killer
>>>> motorists.
>>> Where's your evidence that the motorist intended to cause harm to anyone 
>>>  > else?
>>
>> In DougWorld, the First Rule of Dougism is that the person who is hit is 
>> always "innocent" and the person who does the hitting is always 
>> "guilty" - irrespective of the circumstances such as whether the victim 
>> should or shouldn't have been where he was according to the rules of the 
>> road.
>
> Nono, it's only if the person doing the hitting is driving a car. He still 
> hasn't answered my question as to who would be at fault if the vechicle 
> hitting the kid was a bike or a bus...

The person who would be blamed would be the car driver that the cyclist or 
bus was overtaking, following or in front of when the accident occurred!!!!

Abo <no@spam.thanks> wrote:

> > In DougWorld, the First Rule of Dougism is that the person who is hit is
> > always "innocent" and the person who does the hitting is always "guilty" -
> > irrespective of the circumstances such as whether the victim should or
> > shouldn't have been where he was according to the rules of the road.
> 
> Nono, it's only if the person doing the hitting is driving a car. He 
> still hasn't answered my question as to who would be at fault if the 
> vechicle hitting the kid was a bike or a bus...

Soem accidents woudl cause Doug to spin himself onto the ground. Say a
skydiver does a freefall jump on a bicycle, goes off course and lands on
a motorway where he is struck by a car.

Where does Duhg spin. Frivolously hypermobile skydriver at fault? Driver
at fault? Person expressing democratic right to use motorway inhumanely
killed? Cyclist attacked by motorist? Profligate fuel-wasting aviator
attacks innocent citizen?

So many choices, so many knees to jerk.

"Graculus"  gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

>> In DougWorld, the First Rule of Dougism is that the person who is hit
>> is always "innocent" and the person who does the hitting is always
>> "guilty" - irrespective of the circumstances such as whether the victim
>> should or shouldn't have been where he was according to the rules of
>> the road.
>>
>> The Second Rule of Dougism is that it's only an accident if there's
>> no-one else (apart form the "innocent" victim) involved.

> Applying those rules, there really is no point in continuing to argue
> with him. It's like arguing with someone who dogmatically sticks to the
> fallacy that the world is flat, and never mind all the inconsistencies
> that leads to.

NAHAY?

Doug wrote:

> On 25 Jun, 19:14, Phil Bradshaw
> <philbrads...@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>
>> > The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public road
>> > and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm caused by
>> > that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person.
>>
>> Drivel.
>>
>> > The fact that
>> > the law does not support this is
>>
>> Makes Duhg an ass.
> 
> Why are you trying to make excuses for killer motorists?
> 
Oh good grief.

Steve Firth wrote:
> Abo <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
> 
>>> In DougWorld, the First Rule of Dougism is that the person who is hit is
>>> always "innocent" and the person who does the hitting is always "guilty" -
>>> irrespective of the circumstances such as whether the victim should or
>>> shouldn't have been where he was according to the rules of the road.
>> Nono, it's only if the person doing the hitting is driving a car. He 
>> still hasn't answered my question as to who would be at fault if the 
>> vechicle hitting the kid was a bike or a bus...
> 
> Soem accidents woudl cause Doug to spin himself onto the ground. Say a
> skydiver does a freefall jump on a bicycle, goes off course and lands on
> a motorway where he is struck by a car.
> 
> Where does Duhg spin. Frivolously hypermobile skydriver at fault? Driver
> at fault? Person expressing democratic right to use motorway inhumanely
> killed? Cyclist attacked by motorist? Profligate fuel-wasting aviator
> attacks innocent citizen?
> 
> So many choices, so many knees to jerk.

...and with all the excitement that this generates for him, he ends up 
jerking more than his knees!

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

Gizmo. wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 

>> Why do you insist on using someone else's tragedy to attack an innocent 
>> person who is most probably now suffering severe emotional and 
>> psychological trauma and who will probably need medical help for the rest 
>> of their lives?
> 
> With respect...
> Its because he gets a reaction from you lot. Yup, I used to feed him. But 
> since killfilling him, Usenet has got a whole lot better   :o)
> Ask yourself why he doesnt troll the countless other car, 4x4, transport etc 
> NGs 

You are right but most of the time its *fun*


-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

Doug wrote:
> On 25 Jun, 19:14, Phil Bradshaw
> <philbrads...@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>
>>> The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public road
>>> and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm caused by
>>> that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person.
>> Drivel.
>>
>>> The fact that
>>> the law does not support this is
>> Makes Duhg an ass.
> 
> Why are you trying to make excuses for killer motorists?

Why do you insist on making your self an ass?
-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

John Wright wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 25 Jun, 19:14, Phil Bradshaw
>> <philbrads...@deltasierralima.pipex.charlieoscarmike> wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>
>>>> The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public
>>>> road and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm
>>>> caused by that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person.
>>> Drivel.
>>>
>>>> The fact that
>>>> the law does not support this is
>>> Makes Duhg an ass.
>>
>> Why are you trying to make excuses for killer motorists?
>
> Why do you insist on making your self an ass?

He doesn't, it's a totally natural occurance.

Abo wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> On 25 Jun, 07:27, Adrian  wrote:
>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>> saying:
>>>
>>>> Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
>>>> Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.
>>> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of steps, 
>>> would
>>> you have blamed the builders?
>>
>> No, self-harm doesn't count. There has to be an active perpetrator,
>> such as a motorist.
> 
> How about if the child had run out in front of a cyclist? Or a bus?

It couldn't be either of their faults since cyclists are faultless and 
bus drivers serve the common good.

-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

Mortimer wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
> news:DoGdnazEJo8I-P7VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 25 Jun, 15:41, NotMe  wrote:
>>>> On 24 Jun, 18:38, Doug  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
>>>>> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
>>>>> getting in the way of the car, obviously. Seems blaming the
>>>>> vulnerable victim is not confined just to this NG.
>>>> And in the news elsewhere another tragic accident involving a
>>>> Toddler.
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7473109.stm
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to call for the river Thames to be banned as well?
>>>> After all, it does encourage frivolous hypermobility.
>>> Death not caused by a perpetrator, unlike those caused by killer
>>> motorists.
>> Where's your evidence that the motorist intended to cause harm to anyone > 
>> else?
> 
> In DougWorld, the First Rule of Dougism is that the person who is hit is 
> always "innocent" and the person who does the hitting is always "guilty" - 
> irrespective of the circumstances such as whether the victim should or 
> shouldn't have been where he was according to the rules of the road.
> 
> The Second Rule of Dougism is that it's only an accident if there's no-one 
> else (apart form the "innocent" victim) involved. 

As opposed to anyone in the real world who investigates accidents - the 
general rule for which is that there are always more than one thing that 
has gone wrong simultaneously. This naturally leads to the conclusion 
that real blame has no absolute home.
-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin

On 25 Jun, 08:38, "Gizmo."  wrote:
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>
> news:wv2dndlcg6fsQfzVnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>
>
> > Doug wrote:
> >> On 24 Jun, 21:15, Adrian  wrote:
> >>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> >>> were saying:
>
> >>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
> >>>> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
> >>>> getting in the way of the car, obviously.
>
> >>> Must have brought back memories, eh, Duhg?
>
> >>>> A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died in
> >>>> hospital.
>
> >>> Seems to put the onus on the car there.
>
> >>>> when the two-year-old boy was in collision with the vehicle
>
> >>> Which he was. There's no "blame" in that wording. The boy was in
> >>> collision with the vehicle which was in collision with the boy.
>
> >>>> But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and was
> >>>> in the road when the incident happened.
>
> >>>> They say the two-year-old became trapped under the vehicle and was
> >>>> dragged underneath as it skidded to a stop..."
>
> >>> So a toddler (who can't be expected to have any kind of road-sense
> >>> of his own) was loose and unsupervised, got into the road, and the
> >>> driver - after hitting him - stopped as quickly as he possibly could.
>
> >>> How, exactly, are you so certain from that description that it was
> >>> the car driver's fault? Apart - of course - from your preconceptions
> >>> and inherent bias.
>
> >> The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public road
> >> and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm caused by
> >> that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person. The fact that
> >> the law does not support this is nothing short of uncivilised and
> >> inhuman.
>
> > Why do you insist on using someone else's tragedy to attack an innocent
> > person who is most probably now suffering severe emotional and
> > psychological trauma and who will probably need medical help for the rest
> > of their lives?
>
> With respect...
> Its because he gets a reaction from you lot. Yup, I used to feed him. But
> since killfilling him, Usenet has got a whole lot better   :o)
> Ask yourself why he doesnt troll the countless other car, 4x4, transport etc
> NGs

The answer is simple, unlike uk.transport, which is mobbed by
motorists, they are not dominated by an intrusive and abusive sub-
group.

--
Carfree Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
and public transport.

Doug wrote:
> On 25 Jun, 08:38, "Gizmo."  wrote:
>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:wv2dndlcg6fsQfzVnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 24 Jun, 21:15, Adrian  wrote:
>>>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>>>> were saying:
>>
>>>>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the
>>>>>> other way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for
>>>>>> blame for getting in the way of the car, obviously.
>>
>>>>> Must have brought back memories, eh, Duhg?
>>
>>>>>> A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died
>>>>>> in hospital.
>>
>>>>> Seems to put the onus on the car there.
>>
>>>>>> when the two-year-old boy was in collision with the vehicle
>>
>>>>> Which he was. There's no "blame" in that wording. The boy was in
>>>>> collision with the vehicle which was in collision with the boy.
>>
>>>>>> But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and
>>>>>> was in the road when the incident happened.
>>
>>>>>> They say the two-year-old became trapped under the vehicle and
>>>>>> was dragged underneath as it skidded to a stop..."
>>
>>>>> So a toddler (who can't be expected to have any kind of road-sense
>>>>> of his own) was loose and unsupervised, got into the road, and the
>>>>> driver - after hitting him - stopped as quickly as he possibly
>>>>> could.
>>
>>>>> How, exactly, are you so certain from that description that it was
>>>>> the car driver's fault? Apart - of course - from your
>>>>> preconceptions and inherent bias.
>>
>>>> The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public
>>>> road and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm
>>>> caused by that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person.
>>>> The fact that the law does not support this is nothing short of
>>>> uncivilised and inhuman.
>>
>>> Why do you insist on using someone else's tragedy to attack an
>>> innocent person who is most probably now suffering severe emotional
>>> and psychological trauma and who will probably need medical help
>>> for the rest of their lives?
>>
>> With respect...
>> Its because he gets a reaction from you lot. Yup, I used to feed
>> him. But since killfilling him, Usenet has got a whole lot better
>> :o)
>> Ask yourself why he doesnt troll the countless other car, 4x4,
>> transport etc NGs
>
> The answer is simple, unlike uk.transport, which is mobbed by
> motorists, they are not dominated by an intrusive and abusive sub-
> group.

The only "sub-group" that dominates uk.transport is the one led by you. If 
you were as against cars as you pretend you'd be posting to all car related 
NGs instead of disrupting this one which is isn't about cars. You, Doug, 
have made this group famous in Usenetland, but for all the wrong reasons.

On 25 Jun, 11:42, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 25 Jun, 07:27, Adrian  wrote:
> >> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> >> saying:
>
> >>> Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
> >>> Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.
> >> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of steps, would
> >> you have blamed the builders?
>
> > No, self-harm doesn't count. There has to be an active perpetrator,
> > such as a motorist.
>
> How about if the child had run out in front of a cyclist? Or a bus?
>
The same applies as with a motorist but less likely to happen due to
fewer numbers on our roads and cycle and bus speeds are much less
anyway. Obviously, the slower the speed the more time available to
stop when a child runs out in front. There should be a 20mph fully
enforced limit at all schools and in all built up areas and a
mandatory manslaughter charge introduced for all road killings,
instead of the present derisory 'death by dangerous driving' charge
which lets off so many with so little by way of a punishment.

--
Carfree Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
and public transport.

Doug wrote:
> On 25 Jun, 11:42, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 25 Jun, 07:27, Adrian  wrote:
>>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>>> were saying:
>>
>>>>> Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
>>>>> Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.
>>>> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of
>>>> steps, would you have blamed the builders?
>>
>>> No, self-harm doesn't count. There has to be an active perpetrator,
>>> such as a motorist.
>>
>> How about if the child had run out in front of a cyclist? Or a bus?
>>
> The same applies as with a motorist but less likely to happen due to
> fewer numbers on our roads and cycle and bus speeds are much less
> anyway. Obviously, the slower the speed the more time available to
> stop when a child runs out in front. There should be a 20mph fully
> enforced limit at all schools and in all built up areas and a
> mandatory manslaughter charge introduced for all road killings,
> instead of the present derisory 'death by dangerous driving' charge
> which lets off so many with so little by way of a punishment.

But what happens when the vehicle is travelling at less than 20mph and the 
driver isn't driving dangerously but sopmeone still runs out in front of the 
car without looking and collides with it and suffers sufficient damage that 
they die?

Why should cyclists who kill and injure be exempt from manslaughter charges?

Why should someone who is driving perfectly correctly be sent to prison 
because of someone else's failure?

Doug wrote:
> On 25 Jun, 08:38, "Gizmo."  wrote:
>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:wv2dndlcg6fsQfzVnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 24 Jun, 21:15, Adrian  wrote:
>>>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>>>> were saying:
>>>>>> Interesting. 'boy was in collision with the vehicle', not the other
>>>>>> way around? Of course, the dead toddler had to be for blame for
>>>>>> getting in the way of the car, obviously.
>>>>> Must have brought back memories, eh, Duhg?
>>>>>> A toddler who was struck by a car last night (June 23) has died in
>>>>>> hospital.
>>>>> Seems to put the onus on the car there.
>>>>>> when the two-year-old boy was in collision with the vehicle
>>>>> Which he was. There's no "blame" in that wording. The boy was in
>>>>> collision with the vehicle which was in collision with the boy.
>>>>>> But nearby residents say he had got out of his home somehow and was
>>>>>> in the road when the incident happened.
>>>>>> They say the two-year-old became trapped under the vehicle and was
>>>>>> dragged underneath as it skidded to a stop..."
>>>>> So a toddler (who can't be expected to have any kind of road-sense
>>>>> of his own) was loose and unsupervised, got into the road, and the
>>>>> driver - after hitting him - stopped as quickly as he possibly could.
>>>>> How, exactly, are you so certain from that description that it was
>>>>> the car driver's fault? Apart - of course - from your preconceptions
>>>>> and inherent bias.
>>>> The motorist was in sole charge of a lethal machine on a public road
>>>> and therefore should accept full responsibility for any harm caused by
>>>> that machine to any vulnerable and unprotected person. The fact that
>>>> the law does not support this is nothing short of uncivilised and
>>>> inhuman.
>>> Why do you insist on using someone else's tragedy to attack an innocent
>>> person who is most probably now suffering severe emotional and
>>> psychological trauma and who will probably need medical help for the rest
>>> of their lives?
>> With respect...
>> Its because he gets a reaction from you lot. Yup, I used to feed him. But
>> since killfilling him, Usenet has got a whole lot better   :o)
>> Ask yourself why he doesnt troll the countless other car, 4x4, transport etc
>> NGs
> 
> The answer is simple, unlike uk.transport, which is mobbed by
> motorists, they are not dominated by an intrusive and abusive sub-
> group.
> 
> --
> Carfree Cities
> http://www.carfree.com/
> Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
> and public transport.

Just a wild guess, would not a 4x4 NG be dominated my motorists?
Also would you like to expain who & what this sub-group is?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug  wrote:

> > Its because he gets a reaction from you lot. Yup, I used to feed him. But
> > since killfilling him, Usenet has got a whole lot better   :o)
> > Ask yourself why he doesnt troll the countless other car, 4x4, transport etc
> > NGs
> 
> The answer is simple, unlike uk.transport, which is mobbed by
> motorists, they are not dominated by an intrusive and abusive sub-
> group.

Let me get this straight, you're claiming that car groups are not
"dominated by motorists"? It must be time for your medication.

On 2008-06-29, Doug  wrote:

>
> The answer is simple, unlike uk.transport, which is mobbed by
> motorists, they are not dominated by an intrusive and abusive sub-
> group.

No, Duhg, you aren't a "group".


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Doug wrote:
> On 25 Jun, 11:42, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 25 Jun, 07:27, Adrian  wrote:
>>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>>> saying:
>>>>> Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
>>>>> Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.
>>>> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of steps, would
>>>> you have blamed the builders?
>>> No, self-harm doesn't count. There has to be an active perpetrator,
>>> such as a motorist.
>> How about if the child had run out in front of a cyclist? Or a bus?
>>
> The same applies as with a motorist but less likely to happen due to
> fewer numbers on our roads and cycle and bus speeds are much less
> anyway. Obviously, the slower the speed the more time available to
> stop when a child runs out in front. There should be a 20mph fully
> enforced limit at all schools and in all built up areas and a
> mandatory manslaughter charge introduced for all road killings,
> instead of the present derisory 'death by dangerous driving' charge
> which lets off so many with so little by way of a punishment.
> 
> --
> Carfree Cities
> http://www.carfree.com/
> Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
> and public transport.
> 

Mush as it pains me, I agree that there should be a 20mph limit at 
schools, but only when the little dears are entering or leaving, and 
there should be good & visible road signs.
Manslaughter charge? well you've had it explained before & have not 
listened.


-- 
Tony the Dragon

Doug wrote:

[ ... ]

> The answer is simple, unlike uk.transport, which is mobbed by
> motorists, they are not dominated by an intrusive and abusive sub-
> group.

You are right - uk.transport *is* subject to intrusion and abuse by a 
sub-group (of about three) which doesn't believe in transport or travel.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:45:28 +0100, Brimstone wrote
(in article ):

> Doug wrote:
>> On 25 Jun, 11:42, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 25 Jun, 07:27, Adrian  wrote:
>>>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>>>> were saying:
>>> 
>>>>>> Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
>>>>>> Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.
>>>>> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of
>>>>> steps, would you have blamed the builders?
>>> 
>>>> No, self-harm doesn't count. There has to be an active perpetrator,
>>>> such as a motorist.
>>> 
>>> How about if the child had run out in front of a cyclist? Or a bus?
>>> 
>> The same applies as with a motorist but less likely to happen due to
>> fewer numbers on our roads and cycle and bus speeds are much less
>> anyway. Obviously, the slower the speed the more time available to
>> stop when a child runs out in front. There should be a 20mph fully
>> enforced limit at all schools and in all built up areas and a
>> mandatory manslaughter charge introduced for all road killings,
>> instead of the present derisory 'death by dangerous driving' charge
>> which lets off so many with so little by way of a punishment.
> 
> But what happens when the vehicle is travelling at less than 20mph and the 
> driver isn't driving dangerously but sopmeone still runs out in front of the 
> car without looking and collides with it and suffers sufficient damage that 
> they die?
> 
> Why should cyclists who kill and injure be exempt from manslaughter charges?
> 
> Why should someone who is driving perfectly correctly be sent to prison 
> because of someone else's failure? 
> 
> 

At less than 20mph I collided with and injured two eleven year old girls who 
ran out from behind a parked truck just in front of me.  I had no chance of 
stopping, they were invisible to me until the moment they stepped in front of 
the car.

I say it was their fault, the police took no action, the parents blamed the 
kids, one with the classic line "She's only just got better from last time", 
I wasn't driving dangerously, the car had no defects yet by Doug's reckoning 
I should be charged?

Why Doug?

 

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

nik.morgan wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:45:28 +0100, Brimstone wrote
> (in article ):
> 
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 25 Jun, 11:42, Abo <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 25 Jun, 07:27, Adrian  wrote:
>>>>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>>>>> were saying:
>>>>>>> Blaming the parents is similar to blaming the vulnerable victim.
>>>>>>> Anything to avoid blaming the actual killer motorist.
>>>>>> If the kid had run out of the house and fallen down a set of
>>>>>> steps, would you have blamed the builders?
>>>>> No, self-harm doesn't count. There has to be an active perpetrator,
>>>>> such as a motorist.
>>>> How about if the child had run out in front of a cyclist? Or a bus?
>>>>
>>> The same applies as with a motorist but less likely to happen due to
>>> fewer numbers on our roads and cycle and bus speeds are much less
>>> anyway. Obviously, the slower the speed the more time available to
>>> stop when a child runs out in front. There should be a 20mph fully
>>> enforced limit at all schools and in all built up areas and a
>>> mandatory manslaughter charge introduced for all road killings,
>>> instead of the present derisory 'death by dangerous driving' charge
>>> which lets off so many with so little by way of a punishment.
>> But what happens when the vehicle is travelling at less than 20mph and the 
>> driver isn't driving dangerously but sopmeone still runs out in front of the 
>> car without looking and collides with it and suffers sufficient damage that 
>> they die?
>>
>> Why should cyclists who kill and injure be exempt from manslaughter charges?
>>
>> Why should someone who is driving perfectly correctly be sent to prison 
>> because of someone else's failure? 
>>
>>
> 
> At less than 20mph I collided with and injured two eleven year old girls who 
> ran out from behind a parked truck just in front of me.  I had no chance of 
> stopping, they were invisible to me until the moment they stepped in front of 
> the car.
> 
> I say it was their fault, the police took no action, the parents blamed the 
> kids, one with the classic line "She's only just got better from last time", 
> I wasn't driving dangerously, the car had no defects yet by Doug's reckoning 
> I should be charged?
> 
> Why Doug?
> 
>  
> 
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

<dougmode>
Because a pedestrian can do no wrong, a child pedestrian by definition 
can do no wrong.
You were driving a deadly machine.
You are a motorist terrorist.
Your body should be torn apart by a host of cyclists.
</dougmode>


-- 
Tony the Dragon

Steve Firth wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> 
>>> Its because he gets a reaction from you lot. Yup, I used to feed him. But
>>> since killfilling him, Usenet has got a whole lot better   :o)
>>> Ask yourself why he doesnt troll the countless other car, 4x4, transport etc
>>> NGs
>> The answer is simple, unlike uk.transport, which is mobbed by
>> motorists, they are not dominated by an intrusive and abusive sub-
>> group.
> 
> Let me get this straight, you're claiming that car groups are not
> "dominated by motorists"? It must be time for your medication.

I suspect he's not been taking it for several years, to our deficit.
-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin