Now Clarkson is wriggling off the hook...

Anonymous

oh

Tourist Tony wrote:

Nuggs wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

What really worries me is that thecar was being driven illegally in the fact it was speeding.

What we don't know is if the vehicle was insured or even if the person driving had a licence - at the moment we must assume that until proven it was not insured.

Why must you assume it wasn't insured? On that basis, shall we assume it was full of Al-Quaeda terrorists as well?

More likely than not it would have been insured as a fleet car by AR, thus allowing anyone to drive it.

And just because Clarkson was exceeding an arbitary speed limit, it does not necessary follow that he was doing anything dangerous...

And a quote from your profile:
"Cars, Processing Beer, DIY, Gardening. Very new to this whole cycling thing..."
Joined September 1st.
Are you by any chance a member of another forum? Are any of your relatives Swiss?

He's obviously not fit to inhabit the same planet as you Tony. He likes cars!!! Oh my god, have him flogged. :evil:
He also does his own gardening whilst p1zssed as a newt.apparently :twisted:
And what's this? He's new to cycling? Absolutely unforgivable
He maybe posts on another forum? :shock:
Hang him at once I say.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Tourist Tony wrote:

The whole debate about speeding on here is that it is dangerous. It kills people.

Breaking the speed limit in itself is not necessarily dangerous. If it was true that "breaking the speed limit=people will die" then we would have millions of deaths every year rather than the approx 3,500 that we currently have.
There would also be no need for the charge of driving in excess of the speed limit, we could just refer every case to a charge of dangerous driving.
There have been several cases where people have been taken to court for dangerous driving because they were driving in excess of the speed limit and it has been shown in court that their driving was not dangerous.
It is also true that most accidents occur when driving within the speed limit.

Of course, if you are involved in an accident, then the higher the differential speed, the greater the chances of more serious injuries, but avoiding the accident is much more important than mitigating the effects. :idea:
(I am also not saying that we can't do both)




Anyhow, I only came on here to once again state that nowhere has it been said that Clarkson was actually driving, again.

Cunobelin

The paedophile reference is apt simply because it is a deliberate contrast.

The argument is

I don't accept the limits
I don't think my actions are dangerous or unaccepatble
I don't believe the law applies to me

There is no need to censure me if I break the law.

After all.....

There have been several cases where people have been taken to court for underage sex because they were having a sexual relationship with someone below the limitt and it has been shown in court that their actions were not dangerous.
It is also true that sexual crimes occur when having sex within the specified limit.


It is the law, break it and you should be censured. That is the way ot works.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Cunobelin wrote:

The paedophile reference is apt simply because it is a deliberate contrast.

It's apt because it is the opposite? :idea:

Cunobelin wrote:

(The argument is) I'll assume the argument is

I don't accept the limits
I don't think my actions are dangerous or unaccepatble
I don't believe the law applies to me

There is no need to censure me if I break the law.

After all.....

There have been several cases where people have been taken to court for underage sex because they were having a sexual relationship with someone below the limitt and it has been shown in court that their actions were not dangerous.

This is not a correct analogy to my point, and it is also a lie. You are using sensationalism because you cannot use reason.




And there was me wondering where rothers had gone... :roll: [/b]

Cunobelin

and it is also a lie.

How?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Can you give reference to several cases of people being taken to court for acts of paedophilia where danger was a specific proponent of the case?

nwallace

It is perfectly possible that Clarksons production company doesn't know who is driving the car. When a magazine/tv show get a car they tend to loan it around, all driving on either the owners insurance that covers almost everyone or their own 3rd party cover in their fully comp journalists mega expensive insurance (for other peoples cars).

Interesting situation though, Alfa Romeo are legally obliged to tell the court who was driving their car, the company they lent it to isn't so haven't.

The obvious answer to that is to insist that all cars contain a log book that is updated by National ID cards being swiped whenever they are requested to start. That way you always know who was driving at what time assuming the card hasn't been nicked.

That way when the car is caught doing 55 in a long straight, perfectly visible, no junction, no other vehicles, animals or pedestrians 50 zone, 5 minutes after the driver initiated a doughnut session in the middle lane of the M1 they get a speeding ticket instead of the life ban they should be getting for doing about 20mph circular on the motorway.

Tourist Tony

Ah. Love the usual self-justification.
Come on, boys (it's usually boys), admit it
You hate speed enforcement because it makes you slow down.

ddraver

nwallace wrote:

The obvious answer to that is to insist that all cars contain a log book that is updated by National ID cards being swiped whenever they are requested to start. That way you always know who was driving at what time assuming the card hasn't been nicked.

Are you serious?! lets keep it sensible folks,

good god there are people protesting carrying a card with a photo and your address written on it at the moment - swiping your NI card to start a car is miles into the future, there probably won't even be 'cars'

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Tourist Tony wrote:

Ah. Love the usual self-justification.
Come on, boys (it's usually boys), admit it
You hate speed enforcement because it makes you slow down.

Actually, speed limit enforcement is far from the top of my priorities when I am selecting a speed to drive at. Safety is always number one, which is probably why I have never had an accident and have always kept a clean license, despite possible transgressions of the limit.

Cunobelin

Can you give reference to several cases of people being taken to court for acts of paedophilia where danger was a specific proponent of the case?

There are numerous cases where technically this happens and no action is taken. Every pair of giggling 14 year olds having sex is illegal, as is a relationship betweeen an adult and a fifteen year old. Every teenage pregnancy when the mother is under 16 is technically an illegal act. Very few are taken to court becasue they are dangerous. The same is with speeding. Danger is a proponent in some cases, not not all. It is simply a law that as a member of society you are expected to obey.

The comparison still stands, an "arbitrary limit" which some eople feel can safely be ignored is present in both cases.

Why should we accept one and not the other?

Carrying a shotgun in a town is not "dangerous" yet we have restricted this, why?

Tourist Tony

OT, Rothbook has just sent a message--he's been up the Tourmalet.

Back on topic Matt said:
"Actually, speed limit enforcement is far from the top of my priorities when I am selecting a speed to drive at. Safety is always number one, which is probably why I have never had an accident and have always kept a clean license, despite possible transgressions of the limit. "

So do you think the limit applies to you? How many years have you been driving?

nwallace

ddraver wrote:

nwallace wrote:

The obvious answer to that is to insist that all cars contain a log book that is updated by National ID cards being swiped whenever they are requested to start. That way you always know who was driving at what time assuming the card hasn't been nicked.

Are you serious?! lets keep it sensible folks,

good god there are people protesting carrying a card with a photo and your address written on it at the moment - swiping your NI card to start a car is miles into the future, there probably won't even be 'cars'

The public would never accept it even though it is a near guaranteed way of proving who was in the car whne it did was told to do what ever it did that the polis want to know about.

And in other news a driver has admitted a Culpable homiced charge in relation to motoring offences.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 988845.stm

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Tourist Tony wrote:

So do you think the limit applies to you? How many years have you been driving?

Of course it applies to me, with the exception of vehicles being used in certain emergencies it applies to everyone.
The question you should ask is do I feel that I am a better judge of what is a suitable speed than what is permanently written on a lollipop at the side of the road, to which I would answer yes.

I have quite a number of years driving under my (ever expanding) belt, that's all I'll say.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Cunobelin wrote:

Can you give reference to several cases of people being taken to court for acts of paedophilia where danger was a specific proponent of the case?

There are numerous cases where technically this happens and no action is taken. Every pair of giggling 14 year olds having sex is illegal, as is a relationship betweeen an adult and a fifteen year old. Every teenage pregnancy when the mother is under 16 is technically an illegal act. Very few are taken to court becasue they are dangerous. The same is with speeding. Danger is a proponent in some cases, not not all. It is simply a law that as a member of society you are expected to obey.

The comparison still stands, an "arbitrary limit" which some eople feel can safely be ignored is present in both cases.

Why should we accept one and not the other?

Carrying a shotgun in a town is not "dangerous" yet we have restricted this, why?

So by your own omission, you can't come up with any examples as requested. Your comparison does not stand, despite your best efforts to steer away from your original examples of paedophilia and instead talk about underage sex, as you have obviously realised that you were wrong with your ridiculous sensationalist comparison.

Richrd2205

Matt,
go & re-read the post you've just slated & see the that the data you asked for is present. Teenage pregnancies ran at 8 per 1000 women in the age group in 2003, a significant number of these will be under 16 (or 16 & not quite nine months). If you want exact figures, then have fun with google, but I would have though that several thousand examples would have been enough. Or are you wanting names & minutes of CP meetings? If you could explain the difference between paedophilia & underage sex, I'd be greatly obliged. Do you mean the where one is above & one below the age of consent, as opposed to both below? Given that in a week, using these definitions, a sexually active couple can have underage sex, one of them be a paedophile & then have a consenting & legal relationship, I think that you undermine your argument if this is the case...
I don't really like this emotive example, but you seem to be unaware of the history that brings it up, which is kinda unhelpful. These arguments have been done to death several times on the C+ site. There is no moral basis for speeding other than, "I want to so I will & I think I'm safe," that's ever been presented by any of the manifold trolls visiting there. You might be better asking than preaching in this case....

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Richrd; re-read all the posts.
Initially, cunobelin started spouting nonsense about speeding being like paedophilia, the act of an adult having sexual relations with someone below the age of consent, if you need a definition.
When I pointed out that the comparison was ridiculous and that he had lied in parodying my post, he quickly changed tack and started talking about underage sex, a completely different kettle of fish, and an admission that he was wrong.

If you disagree with/would like to discuss anything I have posted in this thread, then go ahead I would be happy to oblige, I am open to reasonable debate.

I only posted in this thread because certain people started assuming that someone was guilty of something despite a total lack of evidence purely on the grounds that they are a "motorist".

Cunobelin

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

Richrd; re-read all the posts.
Initially, cunobelin started spouting nonsense about speeding being like paedophilia, the act of an adult having sexual relations with someone below the age of consent, if you need a definition.

Why nonsense:
The matter is simple.

Both are arbitrary numerical limits
Both are not acceptable to groups who feel they are "safe" when they break the law
Both feel they are doing nothing wrong in breaking the law.
Both feel hard done by and claim victimisation when they are caught.

The act of speeding is a driver driving above the speed limit - if you need a definition.....

When I pointed out that the comparison was ridiculous and that he had lied in parodying my post, he quickly changed tack and started talking about underage sex, a completely different kettle of fish, and an admission that he was wrong.

No change of tack, you stated that there was a need to demonstrate "danger" before t is illegal - this demonstrates that there is no such need. NO admission at all, it s not "wrong" simply because you disagree. You have failed to support the "lie" allegation totally

I only posted in this thread because certain people started assuming that someone was guilty of something despite a total lack of evidence purely on the grounds that they are a "motorist".

No because the person was named by the vehicle's owners as being responsible for the vehicle at the time and hence as far as they were concerned responsible.

Are you really saying that Alfa Romeo are wrong and that they re victimising Jeremy Clarkson by naming him as responsible for their vehicle and they chose him to name simply because he is a "motorist".

Richrd2205

Matt
I'll answer once, then I'm gone since I have no real desire to discuss motorists on a cycling site...

Initially, cunobelin started spouting nonsense about speeding being like paedophilia, the act of an adult having sexual relations with someone below the age of consent, if you need a definition.
When I pointed out that the comparison was ridiculous and that he had lied in parodying my post, he quickly changed tack and started talking about underage sex, a completely different kettle of fish, and an admission that he was wrong.

-no-one said that speeding was like paedophilia, it was clearly an analogy & one I was quite clear that I didn't like.
-there was no comparison, see above.
-as someone who works in child protection, I'm quite conversant with the definition of paedophilia, I asked what the difference was between that & under-age sex & then made a point about this comparison, I didn't need to be patronized, I was simply asking about your logic.
-your post implies that you've completely misunderstood the argument before you, see above.

I only posted in this thread because certain people started assuming that someone was guilty of something despite a total lack of evidence purely on the grounds that they are a "motorist".

Err, guilty of what you accuse others of??? No-one said that Clarkson must have been guilty because he was a motorist, merely that there's a prima facie case that he is (both guilty & a motorist). You obviously understand that Clarkson advocates killing cyclists & driving at high speeds, so might not be too popular here. I thought the argument was about due process versus the rejection of a prima facie case through technical flaws in the prosecution. We then get on to the arguments about whether speeding is dangerous, which is utterly OT & (as written above) has been done to death here. If you push this argument, you'll engender a lot of ill will through either boring folk or advocating something that people find offensive here. Fair enough, you have your views & are welcome to them, however, I'm a fan of the Bill Hicks idea of, "If there's anyone here who's in marketing or advertising, then please go home & kill yourself," if I present this on a advertising forum, then I'd expect a negative response. That's kinda normal human behaviour... If you want to discuss the merits of speeding, then go use a motor forum. If you choose not to , you'll merely be re-exploring stuff that's been done to death so many times before. Hence:

You might be better asking than preaching in this case....

I was trying to save you & everyone else from another round with an inevitable conclusion. The argument revolves around what you see as having primacy on the road, if you accept that it's not the car, then speeding has no defence, if you do, you're on the wrong forum. I was trying to save you effort & really don't appreciate your aggressive & patronising tone. If this was unintended, then I apologise, but I have no interest in re-doing this & was merely attempting to show you the flaws in your nascent argument & hope that you'd read into that where they'd go when the detail started....

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Looks like it's going to be a long night....

cunobelin wrote:

Both are arbitrary numerical limits

Depending on your understanding of the word arbitrary, ok.

cunobelin wrote:

Both are not acceptable to groups who feel they are "safe" when they break the law

You think the majority of paedophiles are unaware that what they are doing is morally wrong, "danger" not withstanding?
When you say that paedophiles feel "safe", is that safe in that they are unlikely to be involved in a collision involving tonnes of steel at speed whilst committing their sins?
How do you equate the two?

cunobelin wrote:

Both feel they are doing nothing wrong in breaking the law.

See above. I see people driving in excess of the speed limit every day. I have never seen a paedophile "in action". Why? Because the driver who travels in excess of the speed limit feels he is doing nothing wrong, yet the paedophile does know.

cunobelin wrote:

Both feel hard done by and claim victimisation when they are caught.

Again, I can think of no occasion where a convicted paedophile has gone on to say that it's perfectly alright to molest young children.

cunobelin wrote:

The act of speeding is a driver driving above the speed limit - if you need a definition.....

Not too good at this parody malarky, are you?
(if you want the actual legal definition of the offence, just ask )

cunobelin wrote:

No change of tack

Yes there was, you started talking about paedophiles, then changed it to underage sex. :roll:

cunobelin wrote:

you stated that there was a need to demonstrate "danger" before t is illegal - this demonstrates that there is no such need

Before what is illegal? I stated that speed was not enough to convict someone of dangerous driving (the particular case that sprung to mind was of someone driving a Honda NSX at twice the limit. The court ruled it was not dangerous).

You stated that there were "several cases where people have been taken to court for underage sex because they were having a sexual relationship with someone below the limitt and it has been shown in court that their actions were not dangerous" and then failed to give any examples. Probably because to convict someone of having sex with a minor, you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is an adult, the victim is a minor, and sexual acts took place. Danger is nothing to do with the burden of proof.

cunobelin wrote:

You have failed to support the "lie" allegation totally

See above.
Unless you want to take rother's approach of asking me to prove your points for you!

cunobelin wrote:

No because the person was named by the vehicle's owners as being responsible for the vehicle at the time and hence as far as they were concerned responsible.

Are you really saying that Alfa Romeo are wrong and that they re victimising Jeremy Clarkson by naming him as responsible for their vehicle and they chose him to name simply because he is a "motorist".

S172 requires you to name the driver of the vehicle, not who was "responsible".
Perhaps that is where you are getting confused.
The same point stands, nowhere does it state that he was driving.

It's a simple point, I would have thought you could have grasped it by now.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Richrd2205 wrote:

Matt
I'll answer once, then I'm gone since I have no real ability to counter your arguments

Well, if he's gone I might as well have some fun.

Richrd2205 wrote:

I have no real desire to discuss motorists on a cycling site

Top tip: the clue of the thread content is in the thread title.

Richrd2205

Yeah, good night, Matt!
You keep that lovely endearing, tone! Your insult is also p*ss poor since you really could have put a hole in what I was trying to say if you were as bright as you think you are, but well done for trying hard!!!
You asked for engagement & I tried to offer it, you've responded with artifice, selective response & malice, cheers for that & sweet dreams x

Cunobelin

You think the majority of paedophiles are unaware that what they are doing is morally wrong, "danger" not withstanding?

Disputable, but if we accept this argument you suggest that a speeding motorist does not recognise that breaking the law is morally wrong. Are paedophiles therefore morally superior to speeding motorists?

When you say that paedophiles feel "safe", is that safe in that they are unlikely to be involved in a collision involving tonnes of steel at speed whilst committing their sins?
How do you equate the two?

Total misinterpretation.
Both groups believe they know better than the law and are not in their corrupted world view causing a danger. The activity is "safe" as a result.

See above. I see people driving in excess of the speed limit every day. I have never seen a paedophile "in action". Why? Because the driver who travels in excess of the speed limit feels he is doing nothing wrong, yet the paedophile does know.

Assumption - both will "feel" that they are doing nothing wrong. You are simply excusing one because you cannot see anything wrong with it.

Again, I can think of no occasion where a convicted paedophile has gone on to say that it's perfectly alright to molest young children.

Most sex offenders feel that they are "justified" in their actions. In the same way that speeding is justified by offenders.

Yes there was, you started talking about paedophiles, then changed it to underage sex. :roll:

The age difference in the offender is variable as is the level of speed in speding offences. Again a valid comparison

cunobelin wrote:

you stated that there was a need to demonstrate "danger" before t is illegal - this demonstrates that there is no such need

Before what is illegal? I stated that speed was not enough to convict someone of dangerous driving (the particular case that sprung to mind was of someone driving a Honda NSX at twice the limit. The court ruled it was not dangerous).

You stated that there were "several cases where people have been taken to court for underage sex because they were having a sexual relationship with someone below the limitt and it has been shown in court that their actions were not dangerous" and then failed to give any examples. Probably because to convict someone of having sex with a minor, you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is an adult, the victim is a minor, and sexual acts took place. Danger is nothing to do with the burden of proof.

Exactly - Speeding is speeding and there is no need to prove "danger" to convict someone of speeding.

It is also unneccessary to prove the offender is an adult in sex offender cases.

cunobelin wrote:

You have failed to support the "lie" allegation totally

See above.
Unless you want to take rother's approach of asking me to prove your points for you!

Still no proof of a "Lie"

cunobelin wrote:

No because the person was named by the vehicle's owners as being responsible for the vehicle at the time and hence as far as they were concerned responsible.

Are you really saying that Alfa Romeo are wrong and that they re victimising Jeremy Clarkson by naming him as responsible for their vehicle and they chose him to name simply because he is a "motorist".

S172 requires you to name the driver of the vehicle, not who was "responsible".
Perhaps that is where you are getting confused.
The same point stands, nowhere does it state that he was driving.

It's a simple point, I would have thought you could have grasped it by now.

As before the company took a repsonsible attitude in naming the person responsible for the vehicle. There is a requirement in law for the owner of the vehicle (Alfa Romeo) or their delegate( JC) to ensure the vehicle is driven witin the law (Insurance, fit driver, licensed etc.) Alfa Romeo took this responsibly, JC took the lightwieght and morally suspect course of avoiding the responsibility.

As before if there is no proof the vehicle wa insured it should be confiscated.

Anonymous

Yawn.

ddraver

i must pull you up on a few points cun

theres no law stating JC had to ensure the viechle was drivien responsibly - other wise he would have been convicted for that - in a roundabout way he admitted it!!!

there IS a distinction beween peadophilia and underage sex, the 15 year old BOY is convicted of rape - not peadophilia

and i'm not sure that active peadophilesDO feel like they are not doing anything morally wrong, or that their actions are justified at all, I reckon many of them do, as do piky bastards that nick our bikes - whether they care or not is different, there are alot of people on safespeed that feel that they are not doing anything dangerous or morally wron when they speed (i'm not saying they re right or wrong) - to sum up this little bit, I think mat had a valid point saying there is no comparison between a grown man doing whatever it is they do to a young child (doesnt actual peadopjilia have to be below 12 yrs?!) and someone driving at 80mph on the motorway

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Richrd2205 wrote:

Yeah, good night, Matt!
You keep that lovely endearing, tone! Your insult is also p*ss poor since you really could have put a hole in what I was trying to say if you were as bright as you think you are, but well done for trying hard!!!
You asked for engagement & I tried to offer it, you've responded with artifice, selective response & malice, cheers for that & sweet dreams x

I would have replied in earnest if you hadn't posted that you would not reply again, and I didn't mean to sound malicious.
I also don't need to be anywhere near as bright as I am, let alone think I am, to pick holes in what you say. :P
You ask me for a definition, then accuse me of being patronizing when I offer it! :shock: :roll:

I don't even want to discuss how similar breaking the speed limit is to being a paedophile, it's a diversion because cunobelin doesn't want to discuss the sensible things I said about driving, speed and danger.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Cunobelin:


"Disputable, but if we accept this argument you suggest that a speeding motorist does not recognise that breaking the law is morally wrong. Are paedophiles therefore morally superior to speeding motorists?"


Do you honestly think that paedophiles are morally superior to those that drive in excess of the speed limit?
Really, you are as ridiculous as rothers.



"Total misinterpretation.
Both groups believe they know better than the law and are not in their corrupted world view causing a danger. The activity is "safe" as a result."


A massive assumption on your part, and your use of the word safe in varying contexts renders most of your rants meaningless.



"Assumption - both will "feel" that they are doing nothing wrong. You are simply excusing one because you cannot see anything wrong with it. "


It's your assumption.


"Most sex offenders feel that they are "justified" in their actions. In the same way that speeding is justified by offenders. "


Not at all in the same way. One can break the speed limit without involving or endangering anyone else. Another example of why your analogy is totally false.


"The age difference in the offender is variable as is the level of speed in speding offences. Again a valid comparison "

Again, totally incomparable. Once over 21, the age of a paedophile is irrelevant. Totally different to speeding.


"Exactly - Speeding is speeding and there is no need to prove "danger" to convict someone of speeding."

I never said you needed to prove danger to convict for speeding, I said speeding is not enough to convict someone of dangerous driving, and gave an example.


"It is also unneccessary to prove the offender is an adult in sex offender cases. "

Again you are moving the goalposts by now talking about sex offenders rather than paedophiles. Two 16 yr olds can legally have sex, yet one can still commit offences by talking photos of a certain indecency.


"Still no proof of a "Lie"

Still no examples given to back up your claim.


"As before the company took a repsonsible attitude in naming the person responsible for the vehicle. There is a requirement in law for the owner of the vehicle (Alfa Romeo) or their delegate( JC) to ensure the vehicle is driven witin the law (Insurance, fit driver, licensed etc.) Alfa Romeo took this responsibly, JC took the lightwieght and morally suspect course of avoiding the responsibility.

As before if there is no proof the vehicle was insured it should be confiscated."

You are not entirely right there, either. The responsibility is limited.
You cannot prove the car was not insured without first knowing who was driving it, which is the crux of the matter and still unknown.





Now, I have shown why every aspect of your analogy between breaking the speed limit and being a paedophile is totally flawed (with the exception that they are both illegal, that is obvious), so isn't it about time you dropped the ridiculous sensationalism and contributed something sensible?

Let's start with this:

MattBlack wrote:

Breaking the speed limit in itself is not necessarily dangerous. If it was true that "breaking the speed limit=people will die" then we would have millions of deaths every year rather than the approx 3,500 that we currently have.
There would also be no need for the charge of driving in excess of the speed limit, we could just refer every case to a charge of dangerous driving.
There have been several cases where people have been taken to court for dangerous driving because they were driving in excess of the speed limit and it has been shown in court that their driving was not dangerous.
It is also true that most accidents occur when driving within the speed limit.

Of course, if you are involved in an accident, then the higher the differential speed, the greater the chances of more serious injuries, but avoiding the accident is much more important than mitigating the effects. Idea
(I am also not saying that we can't do both)

Do you actually disagree with any of that, or are you happy to carry on your evidenceless witch hunt on all motorists?

Cunobelin

ddraver wrote:

i must pull you up on a few points cun

theres no law stating JC had to ensure the viechle was drivien responsibly - other wise he would have been convicted for that - in a roundabout way he admitted it!!!

By responsibly I mean within the law. If someione allows tgheir vehicle to be driven without insurance by a driver who is banned etc, then they are comitting an offence. It is upot o the individual to prove that the vehicle is insured rather than the Pokice to prove it isn't.

ddraver wrote:

there IS a distinction beween peadophilia and underage sex, the 15 year old BOY is convicted of rape - not peadophilia

and i'm not sure that active peadophilesDO feel like they are not doing anything morally wrong, or that their actions are justified at all, I reckon many of them do, as do piky bastards that nick our bikes - whether they care or not is different, there are alot of people on safespeed that feel that they are not doing anything dangerous or morally wron when they speed (i'm not saying they re right or wrong) - to sum up this little bit, I think mat had a valid point saying there is no comparison between a grown man doing whatever it is they do to a young child (doesnt actual peadopjilia have to be below 12 yrs?!) and someone driving at 80mph on the motorway

I agree, there is a distinction, and the total contrast is the point. The idea is simply to emphasise just how dubious and morally corrupt the "I can speed and break the law because it is only an arbitratry number" argument is. As is the "I'm only breaking the law a llittle bit"

The fact that we have proved again and again that speeding drivers are higher risk takers, more likely to be involved in acciodents, and be more aggressive, it simply seemed to be more fun to poke the nest a little.

Cunobelin

Cunobelin:


"Disputable, but if we accept this argument you suggest that a speeding motorist does not recognise that breaking the law is morally wrong. Are paedophiles therefore morally superior to speeding motorists?"


Do you honestly think that paedophiles are morally superior to those that drive in excess of the speed limit?
Really, you are as ridiculous as rothers.

If one has sufficient responsibility and moral fibre to recognise they are in the wrong, and the other is arogant and stupid enough to believe the law does not apply to them and thatthey should be able to dbreak it with impunity then surelky the answer is self-explanatory?



"Total misinterpretation.
Both groups believe they know better than the law and are not in their corrupted world view causing a danger. The activity is "safe" as a result."


A massive assumption on your part, and your use of the word safe in varying contexts renders most of your rants meaningless.


The assumption was yours....

What context do you see"safe" as then?


"Assumption - both will "feel" that they are doing nothing wrong. You are simply excusing one because you cannot see anything wrong with it. "


It's your assumption.
Again - an exctension of your argument


"Most sex offenders feel that they are "justified" in their actions. In the same way that speeding is justified by offenders. "


Not at all in the same way. One can break the speed limit without involving or endangering anyone else. Another example of why your analogy is totally false.

The "justification" is in the mind of the individual. Bioth are choosingto break the law, bith feel "justified" ibn their actions, feel the lwa should not apply to them and whinge when caught - the analogy stands

"The age difference in the offender is variable as is the level of speed in speding offences. Again a valid comparison "

Again, totally incomparable. Once over 21, the age of a paedophile is irrelevant. Totally different to speeding.


"Exactly - Speeding is speeding and there is no need to prove "danger" to convict someone of speeding."

I never said you needed to prove danger to convict for speeding, I said speeding is not enough to convict someone of dangerous driving, and gave an example.

But speeding is symptomatic of aggressive and dangerous driving - hence the increase in pyschometric testing for deriivers. In both cases the act itself is the offence, not trhe "danger"


"It is also unneccessary to prove the offender is an adult in sex offender cases. "

Again you are moving the goalposts by now talking about sex offenders rather than paedophiles. Two 16 yr olds can legally have sex, yet one can still commit offences by talking photos of a certain indecency.

Sex ofences cover a wide range. The important point is thatthe "age of consent" is an arbitrary limit - as claimed for sped limits. Surely if you can ignore one, you can ignore both. Two sixteen year olds would be the same as a driver doing 30 in a 30 mph zone, no probklem.


"Still no proof of a "Lie"

Still no examples given to back up your claim.

You have yet tos substantiate that it was a lie


"As before the company took a repsonsible attitude in naming the person responsible for the vehicle. There is a requirement in law for the owner of the vehicle (Alfa Romeo) or their delegate( JC) to ensure the vehicle is driven witin the law (Insurance, fit driver, licensed etc.) Alfa Romeo took this responsibly, JC took the lightwieght and morally suspect course of avoiding the responsibility.

As before if there is no proof the vehicle was insured it should be confiscated."

You are not entirely right there, either. The responsibility is limited.
You cannot prove the car was not insured without first knowing who was driving it, which is the crux of the matter and still unknown.

Hence we know the vehicle was being driven illegally, and we cannot verify whether it was insured. It is an offence for a vehicle to be driven without insurance. The onus is on th owner to prove it was insured.





Now, I have shown why every aspect of your analogy between breaking the speed limit and being a paedophile is totally flawed (with the exception that they are both illegal, that is obvious), so isn't it about time you dropped the ridiculous sensationalism and contributed something sensible?

You have?

Let's start with this:

MattBlack wrote:

Breaking the speed limit in itself is not necessarily dangerous. If it was true that "breaking the speed limit=people will die" then we would have millions of deaths every year rather than the approx 3,500 that we currently have.

Incoherent argument.... The present situation is a "snapshot withthe level of speeding, standard of driving and accident ratye fixed at that point.-

We can prove that speeding motorist are high risk takers, more likely to be involved in acciodents and hence more dangerous. The real argument is if we clamped down on the poresent speeding the figure copuld drop significantly.


There would also be no need for the charge of driving in excess of the speed limit, we could just refer every case to a charge of dangerous driving.

There is no problem with both - Speeding is illegal, and is an offence, choose to speed get done, don't bleat about it

There have been several cases where people have been taken to court for dangerous driving because they were driving in excess of the speed limit and it has been shown in court that their driving was not dangerous.

Separate issues - they were still speeding and breaking the law[ - guilty as charged/b]

It is also true that most accidents occur when driving within the speed limit.

Irrelevant - these figures include a myriad of causes, including illegal parking, lack of observation, failing to stop at junctions etc. Symptomatic of poor driving in the same way as speeding is. As speeding motorists are twice as likely to be involved in a collision within six months of theri offence, it is entirely possible that their belief in their imunity is a factor

Of course, if you are involved in an accident, then the higher the differential speed, the greater the chances of more serious injuries, but avoiding the accident is much more important than mitigating the effects. Idea
(I am also not saying that we can't do both)

REducing inury is a eresult in bioth cases, why not have safe driving within the sped limit as adviocated by the Institute of Advanced Motorists?



Do you actually disagree with any of that, or are you happy to carry on your evidenceless witch hunt on all motorists?



Wheelies ARE cool.

Zaskar X

Tourist Tony

"Morally wrong"?
"Arbitrary number"?

Age of consent IS an arbitrary number, varying from country to country just like the speed limit. It's 16 here, 14 in Germany, 12 in Portugal, and irrelevant in most moslem countries. In Pakistan, it's OK as long as you're married to the child and she's had her first period. She has no say.

So where do your moral absolutes come from? Or are you saying the Portuguese et al are all paedophiles?