Cycling Silk threats from driver case.

staringatthesea

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

BTW some of us have been in criminal game for some 4 decades now

The exact words.

I'm sure he actually meant he buys poached deer.

Ooh, a riddle!

80s, 90s, 00s, 10s?

antfly

Is this the old lawyers' trick of using poultry based gags to distract attention from the real issue? :?

cee

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

BTW some of us have been in criminal game for some 4 decades now

The exact words.

I'm sure he actually meant he buys poached deer.

As i said..to me, that is not an explicit statement of his experience. You can tell, by the use of the word us, usually meaning more than one person...

or...4 decades....1989 was only 21 years ago....but spans 4 decades.

..like my company has over 100 years experience of installing secure network architectures....not many computers were around in 1910 though eh!

again...if the lips are moving....don't trust the words.

antfly

I hate to sound like a lawyer but he never said spanned 4 decades but in the game for 4 decades.
To most people that means 40 years.

Maxticate

again...if the lips are moving....don't trust the words.

So a ventriloquist lawyer is completely trustable ?

tailwindhome

Juror #8: There's something else I'd like to talk about for a minute. I think we've proved that the old man couldn't have heard the boy say "I'm gonna kill you," but supposing...


Juror #10: You didn't prove it at all. What're you talking about?


Juror #8: But supposing he really did hear it. This phrase, how many times have all of us used it? Probably thousands. "I could kill you for that, darling." "Junior, you do that once more and I'm gonna kill you." "Get in there, Rocky, and kill him!" We say it every day. That doesn't mean we're going to kill anyone.


Juror #3: Wait a minute. What are you trying to give us here? The phrase was "I'm gonna kill you." The kid yelled it at the top of his lungs! Don't tell me he didn't mean it. Anybody says a thing like that the way he said it, they mean it.

<snip>

Juror #8: Ever since you walked into this room, you've been acting like a self-appointed public avenger! You want to see this boy die because you personally want it, not because of the facts! You're a sadist!

[Three lunges wildly at Eight, who holds his ground. Several jurors hold Three back]

Juror #3: I'll kill him! I'LL KILL HIM!

Juror #8: You don't *really* mean you'll kill me, do you?

Still probably my favourite film.

spen666

TailWindHome wrote:

Juror #8: There's something else I'd like to talk about for a minute. I think we've proved that the old man couldn't have heard the boy say "I'm gonna kill you," but supposing...


Juror #10: You didn't prove it at all. What're you talking about?


Juror #8: But supposing he really did hear it. This phrase, how many times have all of us used it? Probably thousands. "I could kill you for that, darling." "Junior, you do that once more and I'm gonna kill you." "Get in there, Rocky, and kill him!" We say it every day. That doesn't mean we're going to kill anyone.


Juror #3: Wait a minute. What are you trying to give us here? The phrase was "I'm gonna kill you." The kid yelled it at the top of his lungs! Don't tell me he didn't mean it. Anybody says a thing like that the way he said it, they mean it.

<snip>

Juror #8: Ever since you walked into this room, you've been acting like a self-appointed public avenger! You want to see this boy die because you personally want it, not because of the facts! You're a sadist!

[Three lunges wildly at Eight, who holds his ground. Several jurors hold Three back]

Juror #3: I'll kill him! I'LL KILL HIM!

Juror #8: You don't *really* mean you'll kill me, do you?

Still probably my favourite film.

Who is it trying to kill me?

Number 9/ BWF/Mybreakfast.....?
Givecyclists room?
DDD?
All of you?

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean you are not out to get me



PS What film is the quote from?

mybreakfastconsisted

12 Angry Men, It's Lee J Cobb versus Henry Fonda.

I made the same allusion in the priginal thread.

PBo

givecyclistsroom wrote:

I will not be wasting any more time here.

this absolutely reeks of taking your ball and running off............[/b]

tailwindhome

spen666 wrote:

PS What film is the quote from?

I'm embarassed for you. Go and stand outside.

PBo

TailWindHome wrote:

spen666 wrote:

PS What film is the quote from?

I'm embarassed for you. Go and stand outside.

let's see - it's a jury, so there are 12 of them, and they seem quite angry.......

spen666

PBo wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

spen666 wrote:

PS What film is the quote from?

I'm embarassed for you. Go and stand outside.

let's see - it's a jury, so there are 12 of them, and they seem quite angry.......

Its Harry potter & THe Deathly Boredom Part 1 then?

cee

Maxticate wrote:

again...if the lips are moving....don't trust the words.

So a ventriloquist lawyer is completely trustable ?

depends. what does the puppet look like?.....and the inevitable....and what about the stuffed toy he has his arm up?

antfly

PBo wrote:

givecyclistsroom wrote:

I will not be wasting any more time here.

this absolutely reeks of taking your ball and running off............[/b]

Or it could just be that he's got a proper job.

greg66_tri_v2.0

antfly wrote:

PBo wrote:

givecyclistsroom wrote:

I will not be wasting any more time here.

this absolutely reeks of taking your ball and running off............[/b]

Or it could just be that he's got a proper job.

Not necessarily. He is simply saying that he will not waste any more time *here*. Perhaps he can't fit us into his busy schedule of time-wasting.

Or perhaps he expressed himself poorly.

spen666

antfly wrote:

PBo wrote:

givecyclistsroom wrote:

I will not be wasting any more time here.

this absolutely reeks of taking your ball and running off............[/b]

Or it could just be that he's got a proper job.

I think that is a little bit unfair. He is obviously a very successful barrister in his field. He is a QC - and you don't become a QC unless you have lots of ability.

Re PBo - I will refrain from comment

spen666

Greg66 wrote:

antfly wrote:

PBo wrote:

givecyclistsroom wrote:

I will not be wasting any more time here.

this absolutely reeks of taking your ball and running off............[/b]

Or it could just be that he's got a proper job.

Not necessarily. He is simply saying that he will not waste any more time *here*. Perhaps he can't fit us into his busy schedule of time-wasting.

Or perhaps he expressed himself poorly.

Ouch!

A direct hit there from Greg66 - the question being was it below the belt?

antfly

spen666 wrote:

antfly wrote:

PBo wrote:

givecyclistsroom wrote:

I will not be wasting any more time here.

this absolutely reeks of taking your ball and running off............[/b]

Or it could just be that he's got a proper job.

I think that is a little bit unfair. He is obviously a very successful barrister in his field. He is a QC - and you don't become a QC unless you have lots of ability.

Re PBo - I will refrain from comment

That's what I meant, not that he has changed his job but that he's a QC so he probably has more important things to do than argue with a bunch of idlers.

mybreakfastconsisted

antfly wrote:

spen666 wrote:

antfly wrote:

PBo wrote:

givecyclistsroom wrote:

I will not be wasting any more time here.

this absolutely reeks of taking your ball and running off............[/b]

Or it could just be that he's got a proper job.

I think that is a little bit unfair. He is obviously a very successful barrister in his field. He is a QC - and you don't become a QC unless you have lots of ability.

Re PBo - I will refrain from comment

That's what I meant, not that he has changed his job but that he's a QC so he probably has more important things to do than argue with a bunch of idlers.

Still a bit of a flounce thoughbut.

Mr Sworld

antfly wrote:

Is this the poultry lawyers' trick of using old gags to distract attention from the real issue? :?

Zav

I have not read through all this thread.

As I was cycling down the Mall last night, a car came past me at speed and giving me very little room. At the lights, I asked him to give me a bit more room next time "please". He said he did not because I had blocked him.

This is a common theme. "I know, that cyclist has annoyed me, so I'll give him/her a scare by passing really close at 40mph in my 1 + tonne car/cab etc. I haven't really thought about the consequences, if I actually hit him/her ... but hey ho"

Frankly, I find rather odd for anyone, let alone a cyclist, to criticise Martin Porter QC's actions.

Zav

I have not read through all this thread.

As I was cycling down the Mall last night, a car came past me at speed and giving me very little room. At the lights, I asked him to give me a bit more room next time "please". He said he did not because I had blocked him.

This is a common theme. "I know, that cyclist has annoyed me, so I'll give him/her a scare by passing really close at 40mph in my 1 + tonne car/cab etc. I haven't really thought about the consequences, if I actually hit him/her ... but hey ho"

Frankly, I find rather odd for anyone, let alone a cyclist, to criticise Martin Porter QC's actions.

Pufftmw

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-11886985

Although its sub-judice & we don't know all the facts, that report has bearing on this issue...

spen666

Zav wrote:

I have not read through all this thread.

As I was cycling down the Mall last night, a car came past me at speed and giving me very little room. At the lights, I asked him to give me a bit more room next time "please". He said he did not because I had blocked him.

This is a common theme. "I know, that cyclist has annoyed me, so I'll give him/her a scare by passing really close at 40mph in my 1 + tonne car/cab etc. I haven't really thought about the consequences, if I actually hit him/her ... but hey ho"

Frankly, I find rather odd for anyone, let alone a cyclist, to criticise Martin Porter QC's actions.

OldSkoolKona

spen666 wrote:

Zav wrote:

I have not read through all this thread.

As I was cycling down the Mall last night, a car came past me at speed and giving me very little room. At the lights, I asked him to give me a bit more room next time "please". He said he did not because I had blocked him.

This is a common theme. "I know, that cyclist has annoyed me, so I'll give him/her a scare by passing really close at 40mph in my 1 + tonne car/cab etc. I haven't really thought about the consequences, if I actually hit him/her ... but hey ho"

Frankly, I find rather odd for anyone, let alone a cyclist, to criticise Martin Porter QC's actions.

Well I have read through this whole thread and I find it odd, though perhaps not surprising that certain people are criticising Martin. The forum has taken a real slide with some of the personal attacks and criticisms that have gone on here lately from people who don't seem to offer much other than critical posts with minimal basis. A prompt for me thinks to up sticks and move elsewhere in the interweb world

mybreakfastconsisted

OldSkoolKona wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Zav wrote:

I have not read through all this thread.

As I was cycling down the Mall last night, a car came past me at speed and giving me very little room. At the lights, I asked him to give me a bit more room next time "please". He said he did not because I had blocked him.

This is a common theme. "I know, that cyclist has annoyed me, so I'll give him/her a scare by passing really close at 40mph in my 1 + tonne car/cab etc. I haven't really thought about the consequences, if I actually hit him/her ... but hey ho"

Frankly, I find rather odd for anyone, let alone a cyclist, to criticise Martin Porter QC's actions.

Well I have read through this whole thread and I find it odd, though perhaps not surprising that certain people are criticising Martin. The forum has taken a real slide with some of the personal attacks and criticisms that have gone on here lately from people who don't seem to offer much other than critical posts with minimal basis. A prompt for me thinks to up sticks and move elsewhere in the interweb world

I've just had the misfortune to read some of the comments on the BikeRadar site. The commuting section seems to be predominantly inhabited by a bunch of point-scoring, blow-hards. I'd not waste your time or effort posting there, Martin; leave them to their Punch and Judy legal "debates", ego-stroking, and vainglorious tales of overtaking other cyclists during their commutes.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2010 ... l#comments

PBo

the real problem with bike radar, is that some of it's contributors are capable of critical thought, and realise that some cyclists behave like twunts or sometimes make mistakes.

What we need is a forum to chat about cycling - we could call it, say, cyclechat - were we could just all blow smoke up each others ars3s about our cycling halos, and how ALL motorists are basically Beelzebub incarnate.....

mybreakfastconsisted

PBo wrote:

the real problem with bike radar, is that some of it's contributors are capable of critical thought, and realise that some cyclists behave like twunts or sometimes make mistakes.

What we need is a forum to chat about cycling - we could call it, say, cyclechat - were we could just all blow smoke up each others ars3s about our cycling halos, and how ALL motorists are basically Beelzebub incarnate.....

That's not true. Cycle Chat acknowledge poor cycling, there are threads set up there to criticise cyclists and many of the posters are drivers, same as anywhere.

There's no suggestion Mr Porter behaved like a twunt.

Nobody has ever said all drivers are demonic, that's attacking an argument by making up stuff nobody's said.

spen666

Has anyone suggested the lawyer's cycled like a twunt?

Origamist

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I've just had the misfortune to read some of the comments on the BikeRadar site. The commuting section seems to be predominantly inhabited by a bunch of point-scoring, blow-hards. I'd not waste your time or effort posting there, Martin; leave them to their Punch and Judy legal "debates", ego-stroking, and vainglorious tales of overtaking other cyclists during their commutes.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2010 ... l#comments

As it happens, I think the summary is accurate. However, it is pretty much true of every commuter sub-forum I have visited.

What's truly sad is that I lack the self-restraint to stop posting in threads that descend into little more than pissing contests and, for that reason, I am a indeed a "point-scoring, blow-hard".